◄►Bookmark◄❌►▲▼Toggle AllToC▲▼Add to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply

Search TextCase SensitiveExact WordsInclude Comments

List of Bookmarks

Can we cut the cr-p, kids? Forgive my language, but, as Ecclesiastes teaches, there’s a time for everything. The time to cuss is now.

“Radical Islamic terrorism”: He has to be able to say it! This, preach conservative talking heads, is the acid test for electing the next American president.

Is this convoluted concept one you can even remember?

“Radical Islamic terrorism” is like the LGBTQ acronym, it’s a mouthful. It’s unmemorable, unintuitive and does not accurately describe the vile men and women who menace us in our American, English and European homelands.

“Radical Islamic terrorist” is, very plainly, wrong.

Language mediates behavior. In order to properly respond to these vipers among us who elect to kill us despite our kindness toward them, stateside, we do indeed need to properly describe them.

To be vested in linguistic accuracy is to be vested in the truth. The closer language cleaves to reality, the greater the likelihood that correct, and corrective, action will follow.

Certainly the term of choice must reflect reality, not ideology, Right or Left. Why so? If we don’t describe exactly who these killers are, we’ll be unable to eject them from our midst.

The more abstract the expert Idiocracy gets in defining our problems, the more removed will be their solutions—removed from solutions that are the legitimate purview of limited government. You and I will be forced to pay for their elaborate schemes.

So don’t be fooled.

ISIS and an abstract ideology called “radical Islamic terrorism”—a redundancy, if ever there was one, since Islam is radical—are not attacking us. Men and women upon whom we’ve conferred the right to live among us are.

These are individuals who are part of us, not part of ISIS. ISIS is happy they kill us. It’s pleased to continue providing inspiration, even training. But the ephemeral ISIS did not send them to kill us. We invited them here in the idiotic believe that they were like us.

These Muslim killers are Americans, Europeans and Englishmen. We’ve made them so.

This is how American citizenship has been rubbished. Not by ISIS, but by your representatives: State officials who regard all of us impersonally. The same officials and overlords, who squint at Middle America from behind their parapets on the Potomac. The same sorts who call us “deplorable,” for wanting neighborhoods that are safe, recognizably American, maybe even a tad monocultural.

No. These Muslims who strike at our families live among us. They live among us, but are not of us.

As an allegory for the vipers imported by Western liberal leaders—this includes “conservatives”—Donald Trump has aptly adopted Al Wilson’s poem, “The Snake.” In Mr. Trump’s rendering, “The Snake” becomes an allegory of the beguiling refugee, who bites his generous savior while nestling in her arms.

In reality, the snake’s saviors are likely romantic, left-liberal women—many carrying the Y Chromosome—with an erotic fixation on saving dark, handsome, exotic-looking strangers. We live or die by their hormones (or their replaced hormones, in the case of Hillary Clinton and Angela Merkel).

A naturalized, French Muslim runs amok screaming the name of his vampiric God and stabs a rabbi. The State’s position is “mental illness.” Conservatives—as well as that dreadful little man, the French prime minister—say “bomb the Middle-East.”

A Muslim woman in Montreal, Canada—where it’s legal for her to commandeer a car—runs over two police officers. Liberals say “alienation.” Conservatives call for the implementation of “The Bush Doctrine.”

As dumb as Obama, Genghis Bush’s dictum of fighting them over there so they don’t come here failed to consider that thanks to his liberal immigration policies, the snakes were hibernating among us. (And also that the two facets were not mutually exclusive; terrorists can lob bombs and chew gum at the same time.)

Fort-hood, Chattanooga Tennessee, Boston, San Bernardino, Orlando, Nice and Paris; a darling old priest decapitated in an ancient village in Normandy—so sad!—and an American woman gutted in central London: It was not ISIS in the Levant or ISIS in the abstract that killed these—our—people.

This was murder-by-Muslim-immigrant.

America’s latest Muslim specimen of choice to dabble in the lifestyle is Ahmad Khan Rahami, linked to explosions in New York City and New Jersey’s Seaside Park.

Not only was he a naturalized citizen from a wonderful country, a source for wonderfully compatible migration, Afghanistan, but, on coming to the U.S., his family, give credit where it’s due, had quickly acculturated to the thing that distinguishes any good American immigrant:

Sue the authorities, in this case the city and the police department, for Islamophobia.

No. A country that acculturates its immigrants into militant identity politics and multiculturalism has no business bringing in immigrants who will do just that: Act against their hosts or just lie-in-wait, and be as miserable and resentful as our own left-liberal population. Do we need more of them?

Of course, these Muslim murderers—be they the American, Canadian, European or Englishmen whom liberals call mentally ill, alienated, unassimilated—they did not act alone.

Behind almost every murder-by-Muslim-immigrant are the State’s central planners:

Policy-makers, immigration authorities, immigration attorneys, local networks of Islamic organizations, media agitating for more Muslim immigration, and an FBI erecting protective barriers around bad actors—civil liberties, they call it. But oh, how easily they violate ours.

Jihad is intricately tied to Islam. We can’t war against Islam. It’s futile. Reformation of Islam is not ours to undertake.

ORDER IT NOW

You, Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables,” will pay with your sons (and one or two daughters) if the establishment has its way and we “bomb the hell out of them.” Look at what bombing Syria looks like. You can’t find ISIS. You can’t tell friend from foe, and you kill kids galore. It’s a bad idea. You can make it constitutional; you can’t make it moral.

So don’t listen to the expert Idiocracy.

The truth is that the threat we face is not from ISIS in the Levant, but from murder-by-Muslim-immigrant at home. And it’s more often than not an invited and legal threat.

Use precision language, not dumb bombs, and the solution will present itself—a solution that’s compatible with classical conservatism, or with the nightwatchman state of classical liberalism.

But of course our “leadership” will continue in their policy of “invade the world, invite the world,” even if it kills us!

Maybe that’s their endgame.

Read More

ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.

AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll

These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.

Nietzsche once said that God is dead. He also said that as a result of that – a new Ubermensch might emerge. I don’t know about God being dead, but it certainly looks like the Christian one is on his last legs.

Maybe the ruling elites in Washington are just ahead of the rest of us. The Muslim hordes invading the west could be the arrival of the Ubermensch that Nietzsche once predicted – happy to fill the void left by the dead God.

I still wouldn’t blame the Muslims for the chaos taking place – which is probably only happening as a result of having no normal mensch left in the ruling classes of the west.

Maybe it’s time for Trump to adjust to this new reality and start kissing Muslim babies (or babes?) at rallies if he wants to broaden his limited public appeal. Just kidding. I think the only one who brings a promise of hope and change in this election is Trump – he still might turn out to be a fraud, but for now, he looks like the last hope.

I remember reading a 2011 article by Susie Green in which she told her journey from Judaism to philosophy of Nietzsche. She claimed that Nietzsche was not only objective about Jews but also predicted they would play a major role in the decline of Western Civilization.

Friedrich Nietzsche (d. 1900) was an athiest German philosopher and author. He was a White supremacist. In his 1888 book The Anitchrist, Nietzsche while scathing polemic against his Christian faith, did praised Islam in certain ways.

“One needs but read any of the Christian agitators, for example, St. Augustine, in order to realize, in order to smell, what filthy fellows came to the top …… Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down…. Let us put aside our prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more! The German nobility, which is fundamentally a Viking nobility, was in its element there: the church knew only too well how the German nobility was to be won . . . The German noble, always the “Swiss guard” of the church, always in the service of every bad instinct of the church–but well paid…..”

The plan, as I understand, is to flood the western world with muslim immigration in order to get public opinion behind the plan to exterminate those cockroaches. This is necessary because public opinion has become increasingly against middle-eastern wars.

By flooding the west with muslim immigrants, those idiotic liberals get to know what it actually means to tolerate islam... With time, this will lead to public support for a purge of Islam from the world. Dont forget that noboddy hates those goatfuckers more than zionist jews...

Plus, all these terrorist attack justify the growth of the police state... It's a perfect plan really. Even the feminists will benefit from it. Eliminating the billion or so muslim men from the planet will certainly be a step forward against 'rape culture'

Ilana, this is OT but you may get a laugh out of it – seems that the moronic Meghan McCain and intellectual lightweight/dilettante SE Cupp are good friends (this is per McCain’s sophomoric Twitter feed, which looks to be run by a 13-year-old). I understand the familial nepotism regarding McCain’s media-pundit ascent, but why does SE Cupp even get paid for her opinions? She, the quintessential know-nothing narcissist, is actually on the payroll of Glamour mag (presumably to talk about something other than clothes and makeup? Libertarianism Lite, perhaps? Bet she’s a Gary Johnson supporter…)

They’re monumental embarrassments to our gender, and SE in particular makes me want to exchange one of my X chromosomes for a Y

This is essentially the problem. I read that the Somali father, whose son went on a stabbing spree in a mall, stated; I had no clue he was radicalized. Well, I do think the time is coming where that excuse will not be tolerated any more – keep a handle on your kids and what they are doing – this is responsible parenting. If the Muslim community cannot keep a handle on this, it won’t much matter – we will ether be monitored like crazy, with a large dose of racial profiling in the mix or eventually Muslims will be deported (this one is a very tricky one – how do you know someone is not pretending to apostate to stick around to do havoc). Either way, to me, it’s a small price to pay to let the FBI snoop through my underwear drawer as long as the empire gets rolled up – but I suspect they want to keep their empire and snoop at my underwear…

Jihad is intricately tied to Islam.

Correct, but not what is insinuated by this statement. Top scholars around the world have already explained this:
“Islam is absolutely clear on this issue. Two wrongs do not make a right,” Mufti Usmani said. If they feel that the US or the UK are killing innocent civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan, it does not give them the right to kill innocent citizens in London or New York.”

But of course, some random Afghan immigrant thinks differently so I guess his opinion is on par with someone who spent nearly 50+ years studying the religion.

We can’t war against Islam. It’s futile. Reformation of Islam is not ours to undertake.

Check, check and check. This is the Reformation – how do you like it so far?

You can’t tell friend from foe, and you kill kids galore. It’s a bad idea. You can make it constitutional; you can’t make it moral.

This is a very good point against those who simply want to turn Mosul into a parking lot. You have a kind of hostage situation going on here – so is the idea to flatten the building with hostages and their takers at once? It seems to work from a material standpoint – the rubble will look quite peaceful afterwards apart from the rats feeding off the human cadavers.

I do find two points very interesting:
1) The snake story is often used to describe the presence of another community here.
2) As vociferous as she is about the other things – she doesn’t seem to come down hard enough on the US, Brit and Israeli policy that started and is perpetuating this whole mess – the IDF can just let injured Daesh fighters die you know, nobody (but Daesh) is asking them to save their lives:
“Michael Stephens, Research Fellow for Middle East Studies at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).
‘The Sunni militants are fighting Hezbollah, so for now they share the same objectives as Israel. That’s why we’re seeing this odd cooperation between people who would be enemies under any other circumstances.
‘It is also possible that Israel is looking at what capacity these Syrians can add to its intelligence gathering in Syria, which is already formidable.’”

The West should stay out of the affairs of the Islamic nations while at the same time their citisens should remain confined to the desert regions of the planet from whence they came. They do not belong among Westerners.

Yngwie……I would have never thought Ilana would have been a fan. She sure doesn’t look old enough to recall when he was relevant. What was the chant from my youth again? ‘Yngwie is God!’ Pronounced like Ingvay. Oh, good read by the way.

This is essentially the problem. I read that the Somali father, whose son went on a stabbing spree in a mall, stated; I had no clue he was radicalized. Well, I do think the time is coming where that excuse will not be tolerated any more - keep a handle on your kids and what they are doing - this is responsible parenting. If the Muslim community cannot keep a handle on this, it won't much matter - we will ether be monitored like crazy, with a large dose of racial profiling in the mix or eventually Muslims will be deported (this one is a very tricky one - how do you know someone is not pretending to apostate to stick around to do havoc). Either way, to me, it's a small price to pay to let the FBI snoop through my underwear drawer as long as the empire gets rolled up - but I suspect they want to keep their empire and snoop at my underwear...

Jihad is intricately tied to Islam.

Correct, but not what is insinuated by this statement. Top scholars around the world have already explained this:"Islam is absolutely clear on this issue. Two wrongs do not make a right," Mufti Usmani said. If they feel that the US or the UK are killing innocent civilians in Iraq or Afghanistan, it does not give them the right to kill innocent citizens in London or New York."http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4711003.stm

But of course, some random Afghan immigrant thinks differently so I guess his opinion is on par with someone who spent nearly 50+ years studying the religion.

We can’t war against Islam. It’s futile. Reformation of Islam is not ours to undertake.

Check, check and check. This is the Reformation - how do you like it so far?

You can’t tell friend from foe, and you kill kids galore. It’s a bad idea. You can make it constitutional; you can’t make it moral.

This is a very good point against those who simply want to turn Mosul into a parking lot. You have a kind of hostage situation going on here - so is the idea to flatten the building with hostages and their takers at once? It seems to work from a material standpoint - the rubble will look quite peaceful afterwards apart from the rats feeding off the human cadavers.

I do find two points very interesting:1) The snake story is often used to describe the presence of another community here.2) As vociferous as she is about the other things - she doesn't seem to come down hard enough on the US, Brit and Israeli policy that started and is perpetuating this whole mess - the IDF can just let injured Daesh fighters die you know, nobody (but Daesh) is asking them to save their lives:"Michael Stephens, Research Fellow for Middle East Studies at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI).'The Sunni militants are fighting Hezbollah, so for now they share the same objectives as Israel. That's why we're seeing this odd cooperation between people who would be enemies under any other circumstances.'It is also possible that Israel is looking at what capacity these Syrians can add to its intelligence gathering in Syria, which is already formidable.'"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3315347/Watch-heart-pounding-moment-Israeli-commandos-save-Islamic-militants-Syrian-warzone-risking-lives-sworn-enemies.html

Hmmm....so rail against people who support Daesh within our borders, but presumably she's cool with (or ignorant of) supporting Daesh outside our borders?

Peace.

The West should stay out of the affairs of the Islamic nations while at the same time their citisens should remain confined to the desert regions of the planet from whence they came. They do not belong among Westerners.

Ilana, in case you haven’t figured it out, Americans are sick and tired of fighting these endless ‘Wars for Wall Street and Israel.’
We are figuring out that all this ME misery is because Israel wants to be the only power in that area and wants to steal more land from its neighbors, so they’re using the Pentagon as movers, and our kids as cannon fodder and our money to support the Likudnik nut cases who are the real problem in our lives.

Here’s a quote from one of your countrymen, Oded Yinon, who you remember:

“Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.” (A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties, Oded Yinon, monabaker.com)

Judaia is anti-Trump. He says Muslim, they whine, but he means Jew. Inshallah! Trump knows that most of the Muslim terrorists are fake. Like 9/11. That is as Jew as you can get. Jew Mercer — presuming her IQ is above her body temperature — knows the base for fake fundamentalist “Islam” is Yehudi Arabia, and its main idelogue was Donmeh Jew Abdul Wahhab. So let’s get on with electing Trump. Open FOIA on 9/11, and there goes the Jew World Order.

Muslim countries don’t allow insults to the biblical prophets as is done in the West under the so-called FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Some Muslim countries do all criticism of the new Jewish religion, Holocaust’ which is a serious crime in 15 European nations and Israel……

“Our task is to recruit a barrier and once again put the fear of death into the Arabs of the area,” – Yitzhak Rabin, Israeli defense Minister (later prime minister of the Zionist entity).

“Israeli interogators routinely ill-treat and torture Arab prisoners. Prisoners are hooded or blind-folded and hung by their wrists for long periods. Most are struck in the gentiles or in other way sexually abused. Most are sexually assaulted. Others are administered with electric shocks,” – Ralph Schoeman, Sunday Times, June 19, 1977.

“There is no country in the world in which use of official and sustained torture is an established and documented as is in the case of Israel,” – Amnesty International.

Shyam Chand, a former minister of Haryana state (India) and author of Saffron Fascism – in his article Terrorism Inc.: Nexus between CIA and Mossad, published in Mainstream Weekly, November 16, 2008 – stated: “How is that Zionist Americans and Israeli Jews are connected to so many things involving murders, single and plural? How is that the same Israeli security firm was incharge of all 9/11 airports as well as the London Tube and Madrid train station at the time of attack? Informed research points the finger of accusation to the same group of people. It turns out that the number of people murdered makes the Holocaust Industry victims bigger killers than victims……. Fone Fakers were invented by CIA and Mossad before 9/11 which was an inside job by both of them. The same Fone Fakers are used in India. Innocent people are arrested on the basis of calls made through these Fone Fakers…… Not only the nexus between the RSS and Mossad worth investigation, our defense co-operation with Israel needs reconsideration before the ominous shadow of Mossad falls on our defense forces.”

Now let us read what Israeli scholar Rueven Paz wrote about USrael’s “Islamic terrorist organization”, Hamas, – for the most powerful Jewish think tank, Council for Foreign Relations (CFR), published January 7, 2009: “Hamas devotes 90% of its work to providing social, cultural, and educational services. It has a reputation for honesty that distinguishes it from its main political rival, Fatah.”

‘doesn’t look old enough’ – heck, photographers could handle that before the digital age. Clue in, or view in (photos are there) – her age/education in South Africa, particularly timed to politics eg tea with Tutu, has flat out stated in a column that gray/dye/make-up is used, daughter’s approx age, on her 4th country. Heck, I was out with a 74 yr old head-turner today – doable, if not racked by liberalism like a cancer. We discussed vacillation, otherwise known as cock-teasing, with her man-friend. However obvious to me with her, articulate it again, Ilana – why females should not have the right to vote.

Anyway, to keep it light & local, Ilana, the Mosque is Lloyd Ave exit, half way between Westview & Cap – we’re in there a couple times a day. Took a loooong time to get their story, as they need a medical certificate to ride, are elderly, & at least trilingual. So far: the Jews of the East (Africa), Gurjati, India seems to be the centre, ( U.S. angle to keep local/state for you – just learned the Patel motel gang is also Gurjati-based), the Commie (Pierre) allowed them to bypass UN policy & proceed, as ‘prosecuted’, to Canada, rather than to the nearest safe haven. That applies to those from Uganda – the Kenyans/Tanzanians are simply economic refugees. Yes, of course Ilana knows who died, & why, at Entebbe.

So out of 25 drivers only Mo is of obvious ‘Levant’ descent & the one to write them up – at least a couple of the 80 yr old females curse & slap each other regarding seating preference, literally on the steps of the Mosque. Management was literally sending 2 buses to the same addresses to separate them. Rides are $30 taxpayer cost, client pays $2, so $28 subsidy, return trip X 2 = $56 per day taxpayer cost to go to church. Public figures.

Mo got fed up. Given that we only have 2 or 3 buses on at that time, adding one is mega$ just to avoid a cage-match. Mo won – we all now get to participate in the one-bus cage match.

OK if I sit here?
Mrs. X, it is public transit – first come, first served. Your choice.
Mrs. Y follows &, in Swahili or Gurjati, appears to say ‘ Get the F out of my seat, ya whore, before I slap ya silly.’
So either Mrs. X moves or gets slapped around. Literally, I’m nay shittin’ ya, lassie.
Hey, us Canucks are, like, sensitive to cultural differences. Heck, I haven’t even broached the subject of cliteredectomies. Mo’s the only one to say F that, shut up, sit down, I’m Captain of this ship.

Mind you, the Chinese driver is also appalled: ‘They go 10 AM, clean church she say but handicapped – I think drink tea, talk. Noon, drive home but 6 PM, go pray. Then night driver bring home. Is not right 4 ride, 1 day? She go every day, 6, 7 times evening pray every week. Cost much tax. And me, Management ignore, Dispatch no want to talk on radio, send me text to be secret. I know how Dispatch talk, this not Dispatch – this Management tell Dispatch what say so me quiet. Other driver tell me quiet too, do job, you paid.’

You’ve likely forgotten, Ilana, that the Cop Shop (RCMP) on 14th is officially the ‘Gerry Brewer Building’. I trained with Brewer’s fine son, who was soon hauled off to Coquitlam to meet a Shop Steward on the front steps of Management’s Office to face accusations that he had told a fighter that she could find alternate transit.

Uh, no, he reminded her of our fine service & informed her of the possibility that other providers existed, should she have particular preferences. ‘Always the Driver’s fault’, as a Senior Steward recently informed me.

Apart from that, I must say that the Smileys (Ismailis) seem a fine lot, which is totally irrelevant to immigration to Canada, however much it is grounds for pride in success in their 1st or 2nd country. Heck, Dr. Pinto, an ‘Asian’, was one of 2 who saved me in Intensive Care in Katherine Bibby Memorial in Mombasa. Typhoid, 7 days incubation before admittance, quarantined, hallucinating, one of several flirts with death. Bottle of Sprite, timed, 7 seconds one end to the other. 220 pounds today, 117 then. Plus my tenant is of the same ethnicity, as is my next door neighbour, raising quadruple male terrorists. Such a nice guy, I haven’t even asked him if he had her echo-grammed before the cut-off date. Neighbours would have known in Gurjati – the bicycle entrepreneur with the big box on the rear rack, 8 times statistically – 4 keepers, 4 discards.

Walking the dog, staircase to Handsworth Secondary, government boy flushing some big sump. ‘Worst thing is baby-wipes, J-cloths – shredder can tear all the rest up & pump it up to the main line.’
Ya mean like Tampax, plastic applicators, huge wads of toilet paper is OK?
‘Yep, chews it up – except those synthetics – so I gotta hose ‘em out.’

No wonder they got castes in India – I ain’t going down there to stuff the 4 discards into the shredder. Multi-culturalism. So ya wanna discuss it? Used to be ’4 dead in Ohio’ & we took to the streets. 4 discards in the trash, no discussion?

Heck, Vancouver ain’t had no ya-hoo explosions since the Canucks riot. We’d go back to pre-Expo 87 somnolence without a couple truckloads of Timothy McVeighs.
Yeah, all above is done only with a couple spelling checks – names like Pinto, McVeigh, Bibby you remember, you don’t need to look them up.

Ditto for you, Ilana & husband, again irrelevant, as you both would likely be sought after on merit as individuals, not as good group gambles.
Plus you kept the daughter – statistically significant in Coquitlam. Public figures.

Well said Ilana, … and we get the omnipresent ‘Rehmat’ and ‘Talhd’ popping up to respectively to offer justificion in bad cop and good cop cliches.

On the other hand, US and EU mid-east policy is undeniably crappy and on behalf of a nation where you already have citizenship, I would presume.

Dual-citizenship should be banned, the only reason it was officially allowed (I gather blind eyes were turned for British and other citizens in earlier days) was to allow dual Israeli-US citizenship.

Opening the floodgates to much worse.

Ilana, I enjoy your articles, I have suffered greatly at the hands of Muslim invaders, from vicious assaults to an incident that I will not describe, not specifically against me, but it wrecked my life.

You are a lovely woman, a good writer, but at some time you have to face the fact that Jewish bureaucrats and operators invented the invite the world policy (who wrote the Ellis Island doggerel?), and many decades later
came up with, as Mr. Sailer says, the recent ‘Invade the world, invite the world’ ideas, as neocons.

"You are a lovely woman, a good writer, but at some time you have to face the fact that Jewish bureaucrats and operators invented the invite the world policy (who wrote the Ellis Island doggerel?), and many decades later came up with, as Mr. Sailer says, the recent ‘Invade the world, invite the world’ ideas, as neocons."

The "invite the world/invade the world" policy was created by Europeans, which included the Jews, when they, like other groups from around the world, chose to engage in colonial and imperial practices.

'doesn’t look old enough' - heck, photographers could handle that before the digital age. Clue in, or view in (photos are there) - her age/education in South Africa, particularly timed to politics eg tea with Tutu, has flat out stated in a column that gray/dye/make-up is used, daughter's approx age, on her 4th country. Heck, I was out with a 74 yr old head-turner today - doable, if not racked by liberalism like a cancer. We discussed vacillation, otherwise known as cock-teasing, with her man-friend. However obvious to me with her, articulate it again, Ilana – why females should not have the right to vote.

Anyway, to keep it light & local, Ilana, the Mosque is Lloyd Ave exit, half way between Westview & Cap - we're in there a couple times a day. Took a loooong time to get their story, as they need a medical certificate to ride, are elderly, & at least trilingual. So far: the Jews of the East (Africa), Gurjati, India seems to be the centre, ( U.S. angle to keep local/state for you – just learned the Patel motel gang is also Gurjati-based), the Commie (Pierre) allowed them to bypass UN policy & proceed, as 'prosecuted', to Canada, rather than to the nearest safe haven. That applies to those from Uganda - the Kenyans/Tanzanians are simply economic refugees. Yes, of course Ilana knows who died, & why, at Entebbe.

So out of 25 drivers only Mo is of obvious 'Levant' descent & the one to write them up - at least a couple of the 80 yr old females curse & slap each other regarding seating preference, literally on the steps of the Mosque. Management was literally sending 2 buses to the same addresses to separate them. Rides are $30 taxpayer cost, client pays $2, so $28 subsidy, return trip X 2 = $56 per day taxpayer cost to go to church. Public figures.

Mo got fed up. Given that we only have 2 or 3 buses on at that time, adding one is mega$ just to avoid a cage-match. Mo won - we all now get to participate in the one-bus cage match.

OK if I sit here?
Mrs. X, it is public transit - first come, first served. Your choice.
Mrs. Y follows &, in Swahili or Gurjati, appears to say ' Get the F out of my seat, ya whore, before I slap ya silly.'
So either Mrs. X moves or gets slapped around. Literally, I'm nay shittin' ya, lassie.
Hey, us Canucks are, like, sensitive to cultural differences. Heck, I haven't even broached the subject of cliteredectomies. Mo's the only one to say F that, shut up, sit down, I'm Captain of this ship.

Mind you, the Chinese driver is also appalled: 'They go 10 AM, clean church she say but handicapped – I think drink tea, talk. Noon, drive home but 6 PM, go pray. Then night driver bring home. Is not right 4 ride, 1 day? She go every day, 6, 7 times evening pray every week. Cost much tax. And me, Management ignore, Dispatch no want to talk on radio, send me text to be secret. I know how Dispatch talk, this not Dispatch – this Management tell Dispatch what say so me quiet. Other driver tell me quiet too, do job, you paid.'

You've likely forgotten, Ilana, that the Cop Shop (RCMP) on 14th is officially the 'Gerry Brewer Building'. I trained with Brewer's fine son, who was soon hauled off to Coquitlam to meet a Shop Steward on the front steps of Management's Office to face accusations that he had told a fighter that she could find alternate transit.

Uh, no, he reminded her of our fine service & informed her of the possibility that other providers existed, should she have particular preferences. 'Always the Driver's fault', as a Senior Steward recently informed me.

Apart from that, I must say that the Smileys (Ismailis) seem a fine lot, which is totally irrelevant to immigration to Canada, however much it is grounds for pride in success in their 1st or 2nd country. Heck, Dr. Pinto, an 'Asian', was one of 2 who saved me in Intensive Care in Katherine Bibby Memorial in Mombasa. Typhoid, 7 days incubation before admittance, quarantined, hallucinating, one of several flirts with death. Bottle of Sprite, timed, 7 seconds one end to the other. 220 pounds today, 117 then. Plus my tenant is of the same ethnicity, as is my next door neighbour, raising quadruple male terrorists. Such a nice guy, I haven't even asked him if he had her echo-grammed before the cut-off date. Neighbours would have known in Gurjati – the bicycle entrepreneur with the big box on the rear rack, 8 times statistically – 4 keepers, 4 discards.

Walking the dog, staircase to Handsworth Secondary, government boy flushing some big sump. 'Worst thing is baby-wipes, J-cloths – shredder can tear all the rest up & pump it up to the main line.'
Ya mean like Tampax, plastic applicators, huge wads of toilet paper is OK?
'Yep, chews it up – except those synthetics – so I gotta hose 'em out.'

No wonder they got castes in India – I ain't going down there to stuff the 4 discards into the shredder. Multi-culturalism. So ya wanna discuss it? Used to be '4 dead in Ohio' & we took to the streets. 4 discards in the trash, no discussion?

Heck, Vancouver ain't had no ya-hoo explosions since the Canucks riot. We'd go back to pre-Expo 87 somnolence without a couple truckloads of Timothy McVeighs.
Yeah, all above is done only with a couple spelling checks – names like Pinto, McVeigh, Bibby you remember, you don't need to look them up.

Ditto for you, Ilana & husband, again irrelevant, as you both would likely be sought after on merit as individuals, not as good group gambles.
Plus you kept the daughter – statistically significant in Coquitlam. Public figures.

Brutus, Maybe you should back off on the morning drinking and bong hits…..

Agree. There should be a policy of resettlement the refugees and migrants on the property of major warmongers. For instance, Sarkozy was very enthusiastic about bombing Libya (has Libya tried to attack France?) and reducing Libya, this formerly most prosperous state in North Africa, into a jihadis kingdom. The previously well-functioning Libya also used to control the sub-Saharan economic migration. Today, the Paris boulevards, that have been trashed by the young back migrants from sub-Saharan region, should be renamed after Sarkozy so that his worrisome and opportunistic kind of undermensch would know that people remember the names of the traitors to European civilization.
Was not it fun for the NATO to kill and maim Libyans of all ages, to see Libyan children reduced to shredded meat, and to observe the awesome scale of destruction in the formally flourishing Libya... The same bloody cowards that have been ordering the killings, are attacking the brave veterans: "Drone Pilots have Bank Accounts and Credit Cards Frozen by Feds for Exposing US Murder:"
http://bients.com/drone-pilots-bank-accounts-credit-cards-frozen-feds-exposing-us-murder/

Well said Ilana, ... and we get the omnipresent 'Rehmat' and 'Talhd' popping up to respectively to offer justificion in bad cop and good cop cliches.

On the other hand, US and EU mid-east policy is undeniably crappy and on behalf of a nation where you already have citizenship, I would presume.

Dual-citizenship should be banned, the only reason it was officially allowed (I gather blind eyes were turned for British and other citizens in earlier days) was to allow dual Israeli-US citizenship.

Opening the floodgates to much worse.

Ilana, I enjoy your articles, I have suffered greatly at the hands of Muslim invaders, from vicious assaults to an incident that I will not describe, not specifically against me, but it wrecked my life.

You are a lovely woman, a good writer, but at some time you have to face the fact that Jewish bureaucrats and operators invented the invite the world policy (who wrote the Ellis Island doggerel?), and many decades later
came up with, as Mr. Sailer says, the recent 'Invade the world, invite the world' ideas, as neocons.

Ilana, I would guess from your writing that you are no neocon.

Consciousness is important.

Sorry if I phrased anything badly,

Regards,

Che.

“You are a lovely woman, a good writer, but at some time you have to face the fact that Jewish bureaucrats and operators invented the invite the world policy (who wrote the Ellis Island doggerel?), and many decades later came up with, as Mr. Sailer says, the recent ‘Invade the world, invite the world’ ideas, as neocons.”

The “invite the world/invade the world” policy was created by Europeans, which included the Jews, when they, like other groups from around the world, chose to engage in colonial and imperial practices.

Well said Ilana, ... and we get the omnipresent 'Rehmat' and 'Talhd' popping up to respectively to offer justificion in bad cop and good cop cliches.

On the other hand, US and EU mid-east policy is undeniably crappy and on behalf of a nation where you already have citizenship, I would presume.

Dual-citizenship should be banned, the only reason it was officially allowed (I gather blind eyes were turned for British and other citizens in earlier days) was to allow dual Israeli-US citizenship.

Opening the floodgates to much worse.

Ilana, I enjoy your articles, I have suffered greatly at the hands of Muslim invaders, from vicious assaults to an incident that I will not describe, not specifically against me, but it wrecked my life.

You are a lovely woman, a good writer, but at some time you have to face the fact that Jewish bureaucrats and operators invented the invite the world policy (who wrote the Ellis Island doggerel?), and many decades later
came up with, as Mr. Sailer says, the recent 'Invade the world, invite the world' ideas, as neocons.

Ilana, I would guess from your writing that you are no neocon.

Consciousness is important.

Sorry if I phrased anything badly,

Regards,

Che.

Hey Che,

Well you mentioned my name so I thought I should at least get some clarification: what exactly was I justifying?

Peace.

My sympathies for whatever harm you’ve been at the receiving end of from the hands of my coreligionists. May God grant you patience and strength.

The West should stay out of the affairs of the Islamic nations while at the same time their citisens should remain confined to the desert regions of the planet from whence they came. They do not belong among Westerners.

West should stay out of the affairs of the Islamic nations while at the same time their citisens should remain confined to the desert regions of the planet from whence they came

um.. do you comprehend that it is directly due to the West’s interventions in the Islamic nations that they are fleeing the myriad horrors that the West is imposing on them?

More rag-headed babushkas appear every year where I live…but when is Ms. Mercer going to address the how and why of our immigration policies…as in who re-wrote them in 1965…or who co-opted the Statue of Liberty and turned America into an open motel for the Gypsies of the world?

I've been saying for a long time that our TREASONOUS leaders are the real problem.

Agree. There should be a policy of resettlement the refugees and migrants on the property of major warmongers. For instance, Sarkozy was very enthusiastic about bombing Libya (has Libya tried to attack France?) and reducing Libya, this formerly most prosperous state in North Africa, into a jihadis kingdom. The previously well-functioning Libya also used to control the sub-Saharan economic migration. Today, the Paris boulevards, that have been trashed by the young back migrants from sub-Saharan region, should be renamed after Sarkozy so that his worrisome and opportunistic kind of undermensch would know that people remember the names of the traitors to European civilization.
Was not it fun for the NATO to kill and maim Libyans of all ages, to see Libyan children reduced to shredded meat, and to observe the awesome scale of destruction in the formally flourishing Libya… The same bloody cowards that have been ordering the killings, are attacking the brave veterans: “Drone Pilots have Bank Accounts and Credit Cards Frozen by Feds for Exposing US Murder:”

Today, the Paris boulevards, that have been trashed by the young back migrants from sub-Saharan region, should be renamed after Sarkozy so that his worrisome and opportunistic kind of undermensch would know that people remember the names of the traitors to European civilization.

Agree. There should be a policy of resettlement the refugees and migrants on the property of major warmongers. For instance, Sarkozy was very enthusiastic about bombing Libya (has Libya tried to attack France?) and reducing Libya, this formerly most prosperous state in North Africa, into a jihadis kingdom. The previously well-functioning Libya also used to control the sub-Saharan economic migration. Today, the Paris boulevards, that have been trashed by the young back migrants from sub-Saharan region, should be renamed after Sarkozy so that his worrisome and opportunistic kind of undermensch would know that people remember the names of the traitors to European civilization.
Was not it fun for the NATO to kill and maim Libyans of all ages, to see Libyan children reduced to shredded meat, and to observe the awesome scale of destruction in the formally flourishing Libya... The same bloody cowards that have been ordering the killings, are attacking the brave veterans: "Drone Pilots have Bank Accounts and Credit Cards Frozen by Feds for Exposing US Murder:"
http://bients.com/drone-pilots-bank-accounts-credit-cards-frozen-feds-exposing-us-murder/

Today, the Paris boulevards, that have been trashed by the young back migrants from sub-Saharan region, should be renamed after Sarkozy so that his worrisome and opportunistic kind of undermensch would know that people remember the names of the traitors to European civilization.

More rag-headed babushkas appear every year where I live...but when is Ms. Mercer going to address the how and why of our immigration policies...as in who re-wrote them in 1965...or who co-opted the Statue of Liberty and turned America into an open motel for the Gypsies of the world?

An article on that topic would be interesting but why is it her duty to write it?

Ilana Mercer writes: “ISIS is happy they kill us…. These Muslim killers are Americans, Europeans and Englishmen. We’ve made them so.”

And how exactly “we have made them so?” Who are those “we?”
“We” – the majority of decent westerners – were against the illegal Iraq war, whereas the main war profiteers of Cheney kind and the main zionist propagandists Kristols, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kagans, Netanyahu and such were very much for the military solutions and other “humanitarian interventions” in the Middle East.

Here is a question for Ilana: Why Israelis have been helping the ISIS fighters? According to you, ISIS is made of anti-West killers. And yet, Israel used to buy oil from ISIS (thus financially supporting the fanatic jihadis), and Israel used to take care of the wounded ISIS warriors (see your Haaretz).

Also, what has been Nuland-Kagan doing in Ukraine? Encouraging Ukrainian neo-Nazis to fight against Christian Russia? – After Babij Yar and more? https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/
Here is an obvious analogy for Ilana specifically: How come that the “radicalized” Jews had been killing the Nazis on the German territory during the WWII? Perhaps some of these Jewish fighters had a vivid memory of their family members reduced to dead corpses and worse by the Nazis?

Ilana writes: “The truth is that the threat we face is not from ISIS in the Levant, but from murder-by-Muslim-immigrant at home.” Let me respectfully disagree and tell the author that the real “threat we face” is from the worrisome neo- and ziocon scoundrels that spread war and destruction around the globe to prop the US dollar for the glory of “vampire squid on the face of humanity” and to “restore” the mythical Eretz Israel. http://www.globalresearch.ca/greater-israel-the-zionist-plan-for-the-middle-east/5324815

All we know is that Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha is an Iraqi immigrant.
And Mona does not sound like a name that would be given to Muslim girl.

Nevertheless, I will assume she is a Muslim Iraqi immigrant.
So?

There are immigrants from all over the world doing wonderful things in US.
If she had not immigrated to US, where she became an MD, nobody knows where she'd end up in life. If not her, somebody else would have eventually done what she did.

Immigrants do (mostly) fine here primarily not because of who or what they are.
They do great, because of the immense opportunities - primarily - this country gives immigrants. For every Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, there are 10s of 1,000s of Iraqis who would have done much better if they had the luck to get into US. And there are 10s of 1,000s of Dr. Lees, Dr. Guptas etc from non-Muslim counties who are just as good. So why invite trouble?
For every Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, God knows how many 1,000s are there of young, ingrate Muslim immigrants to US or their progeny who grow up hating Americans and America.

And one for the road:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting

Dr of Psychiatry radicalized Muslim Nidal Hasan, son of Muslim immigrants given shelter in Christian American, a U.S. Army major, murders 13 fellow Americans and wounds or maims 30 others.

{Maybe we should keep the Muslim immigrants and deport some Unz Review commenters.}

We'll start with you: which Muslim country would you like to be deported to? Iraq; Pakistan; Saudi Arabia;.......?

Nietzsche once said that God is dead. He also said that as a result of that - a new Ubermensch might emerge. I don’t know about God being dead, but it certainly looks like the Christian one is on his last legs.

Maybe the ruling elites in Washington are just ahead of the rest of us. The Muslim hordes invading the west could be the arrival of the Ubermensch that Nietzsche once predicted – happy to fill the void left by the dead God.

I still wouldn’t blame the Muslims for the chaos taking place - which is probably only happening as a result of having no normal mensch left in the ruling classes of the west.

Maybe it’s time for Trump to adjust to this new reality and start kissing Muslim babies (or babes?) at rallies if he wants to broaden his limited public appeal. Just kidding. I think the only one who brings a promise of hope and change in this election is Trump – he still might turn out to be a fraud, but for now, he looks like the last hope.

I remember reading a 2011 article by Susie Green in which she told her journey from Judaism to philosophy of Nietzsche. She claimed that Nietzsche was not only objective about Jews but also predicted they would play a major role in the decline of Western Civilization.

Friedrich Nietzsche (d. 1900) was an athiest German philosopher and author. He was a White supremacist. In his 1888 book The Anitchrist, Nietzsche while scathing polemic against his Christian faith, did praised Islam in certain ways.

“One needs but read any of the Christian agitators, for example, St. Augustine, in order to realize, in order to smell, what filthy fellows came to the top …… Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down…. Let us put aside our prejudices! The crusades were a higher form of piracy, nothing more! The German nobility, which is fundamentally a Viking nobility, was in its element there: the church knew only too well how the German nobility was to be won . . . The German noble, always the “Swiss guard” of the church, always in the service of every bad instinct of the church–but well paid…..”

Ilana when are you going to address the fact that a preponderance of rich Jews are supporting Hillary and the Never Trump crowd. Being a Jew yourself I would think you would have something to say.

The plan, as I understand, is to flood the western world with muslim immigration in order to get public opinion behind the plan to exterminate those cockroaches. This is necessary because public opinion has become increasingly against middle-eastern wars.

By flooding the west with muslim immigrants, those idiotic liberals get to know what it actually means to tolerate islam… With time, this will lead to public support for a purge of Islam from the world. Dont forget that noboddy hates those goatfuckers more than zionist jews…

Plus, all these terrorist attack justify the growth of the police state… It’s a perfect plan really. Even the feminists will benefit from it. Eliminating the billion or so muslim men from the planet will certainly be a step forward against ‘rape culture’

The truth is that the threat we face is not from ISIS in the Levant, but from murder-by-Muslim-immigrant at home. And it’s more often than not an invited and legal threat.

Check out what this Muslim immigrant did:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/health/flint-water-mona-hanna-attish/

Maybe we should keep the Muslim immigrants and deport some Unz Review commenters.

{Check out what this Muslim immigrant did….}

All we know is that Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha is an Iraqi immigrant.
And Mona does not sound like a name that would be given to Muslim girl.

Nevertheless, I will assume she is a Muslim Iraqi immigrant.
So?

There are immigrants from all over the world doing wonderful things in US.
If she had not immigrated to US, where she became an MD, nobody knows where she’d end up in life. If not her, somebody else would have eventually done what she did.

Immigrants do (mostly) fine here primarily not because of who or what they are.
They do great, because of the immense opportunities – primarily – this country gives immigrants. For every Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, there are 10s of 1,000s of Iraqis who would have done much better if they had the luck to get into US. And there are 10s of 1,000s of Dr. Lees, Dr. Guptas etc from non-Muslim counties who are just as good. So why invite trouble?
For every Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, God knows how many 1,000s are there of young, ingrate Muslim immigrants to US or their progeny who grow up hating Americans and America.

And Mona does not sound like a name that would be given to Muslim girl.

You don't know Egyptians then; the last generation regularly named their girls names like Mona, Amy, Dena etc. For some odd reason they went to short two-syllable names (whether from Arabic or not) - very popular. My wife's best friend in UCLA was a Muslim girl name Amy.

For every Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, God knows how many 1,000s are there of young, ingrate Muslim immigrants to US

You seem to be just making stuff up. There are thousands of Muslim doctors in the US, many of whom are immigrants. Muslims cause very few problems, and if I had to chose a group to export into a lake of fire it would be white nationalists. I'd feel bad about it for a couple minutes, though.

All we know is that Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha is an Iraqi immigrant.
And Mona does not sound like a name that would be given to Muslim girl.

Nevertheless, I will assume she is a Muslim Iraqi immigrant.
So?

There are immigrants from all over the world doing wonderful things in US.
If she had not immigrated to US, where she became an MD, nobody knows where she'd end up in life. If not her, somebody else would have eventually done what she did.

Immigrants do (mostly) fine here primarily not because of who or what they are.
They do great, because of the immense opportunities - primarily - this country gives immigrants. For every Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, there are 10s of 1,000s of Iraqis who would have done much better if they had the luck to get into US. And there are 10s of 1,000s of Dr. Lees, Dr. Guptas etc from non-Muslim counties who are just as good. So why invite trouble?
For every Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, God knows how many 1,000s are there of young, ingrate Muslim immigrants to US or their progeny who grow up hating Americans and America.

And one for the road:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting

Dr of Psychiatry radicalized Muslim Nidal Hasan, son of Muslim immigrants given shelter in Christian American, a U.S. Army major, murders 13 fellow Americans and wounds or maims 30 others.

{Maybe we should keep the Muslim immigrants and deport some Unz Review commenters.}

We'll start with you: which Muslim country would you like to be deported to? Iraq; Pakistan; Saudi Arabia;.......?

Yo Avery,

And Mona does not sound like a name that would be given to Muslim girl.

You don’t know Egyptians then; the last generation regularly named their girls names like Mona, Amy, Dena etc. For some odd reason they went to short two-syllable names (whether from Arabic or not) – very popular. My wife’s best friend in UCLA was a Muslim girl name Amy.

Judaia is anti-Trump. He says Muslim, they whine, but he means Jew. Inshallah! Trump knows that most of the Muslim terrorists are fake. Like 9/11. That is as Jew as you can get. Jew Mercer -- presuming her IQ is above her body temperature -- knows the base for fake fundamentalist "Islam" is Yehudi Arabia, and its main idelogue was Donmeh Jew Abdul Wahhab. So let's get on with electing Trump. Open FOIA on 9/11, and there goes the Jew World Order.

And Mona does not sound like a name that would be given to Muslim girl.

You don't know Egyptians then; the last generation regularly named their girls names like Mona, Amy, Dena etc. For some odd reason they went to short two-syllable names (whether from Arabic or not) - very popular. My wife's best friend in UCLA was a Muslim girl name Amy.

Peace.

Yo, Talha:

I stand corrected then.
That is why I stipulated that, for argument’s sake, I’ll assume the good Doctor is Muslim.

OK, here it comes: since you only ‘hit’ me with a ‘gimme’, which other of my assertions in that post do you agree or disagree with?

As to your other points - I agree with quite a bit. I think there is no doubt that the (generally) open meritocracy is a great boon and strength of the US and Europe - the capable are allowed to rise to the top. One of the most obvious examples of this (something that I heard from a Muslim scholar who studied in Africa) is that Obama can actually become President in the US, while in Kenya he would have had no chance because of the tribe his father belonged to!

I don't know if anyone else would have done what she did (though I don't necessarily credit this solely to her being a Muslim) - plenty people are docile and will not push much further when pushed back, but it looks like she really pushed the system on behalf of those that were adversely affected.

As far as the comment about thousands of angry ungrateful young Muslims - I can definitely see this apply to those throngs crossing into Europe and trashing European cities. But in the US, I have my ear to the ground and most Muslims appreciate life and feel blessed to live here. Are they upset with US foreign policy - hell yes! But so are many of the commentators on this site. They are also appreciative of the freedoms here - there is actually less fear of being outwardly religious here than in many countries because they think you might be becoming radical and you will get picked up and detained - even for sporting a beard or something. Are they also disturbed by rabid feminism and militant atheism and rampant degeneracy and the increasing police state - hell yes! But so are many of the commentators on this site.

The violent ones tend to get the most attention and, no doubt, the Muslim community has to try harder to keep this under control. I have noticed a disturbing trend in the Muslim youth to ape inner-city thug behavior - this and not knowing enough about the tradition to be susceptible to being reeled in by internet-savvy extremists is the danger I see.

Hate to interrupt the AIPAC meeting but there is breaking news…..the kenyan muzzie-in-chief traitor sided with the house of saud against the 911 families and vetoed the 911 bill. None dare call it treason…….

The plan, as I understand, is to flood the western world with muslim immigration in order to get public opinion behind the plan to exterminate those cockroaches. This is necessary because public opinion has become increasingly against middle-eastern wars.

By flooding the west with muslim immigrants, those idiotic liberals get to know what it actually means to tolerate islam... With time, this will lead to public support for a purge of Islam from the world. Dont forget that noboddy hates those goatfuckers more than zionist jews...

Plus, all these terrorist attack justify the growth of the police state... It's a perfect plan really. Even the feminists will benefit from it. Eliminating the billion or so muslim men from the planet will certainly be a step forward against 'rape culture'

Think deeper. Israel is our friend

I admire your ignorance Moshe…..

Could you enlighten us all – why the Christian European expelled Jewish communities enmass 108 times and not Muslim communities who once ruled Spain, Sicily, Malta and Greece?

Why European Christians carried ethnic-cleansing of Jews and not Muslims during WWI and WWII?

The answer comes from FBI – American hate Jews more than they hate Muslims.

And why are you - IslamoFascist ingrate parasite - originally from Islamistan Pakistan, still squatting in that Canadian-bacon pig farm? Mooching off of benevolent Canadian Christians, you IslamoFascist parasite?

If Islam is so great, why don't you go back to Pakistan, you anti-Christian, ingrate, bigot, IslamoFascist parasite?

The world is a much better place to live in since ww2. The nazis were a bunch a jalous pigs who tried to steal kabbalistic wisdom from it's rightfull sages, they didnt just want to exterminate jews, they wanted our occult knowledge.

This only brought pain and suffering to mankind. A bunch of kid playing with matches and gazoline...

And about those expelled jewish communities: didnt that happen during the middle ages? Oh yeah, that was a really good era to live in! Riiighhht...

The Vatican is certainly a very nice institution, that always treated people fairly, and not a bunch of greedy old f*cks... Riiiight...

As it ever occured to you that perhaps these countries didnt only expel jews for beautiful romantic reasons... You know, were talking about peoples who were burning witches...

Your life will be much more enjoyable once you stop being a jalous moron and you stop biting the hand that feeds you.

By the way: linking to your own blog to prove your point is quite pathetic

And why are you – IslamoFascist ingrate parasite – originally from Islamistan Pakistan, still squatting in that Canadian-bacon pig farm? Mooching off of benevolent Canadian Christians, you IslamoFascist parasite?

If Islam is so great, why don’t you go back to Pakistan, you anti-Christian, ingrate, bigot, IslamoFascist parasite?

On the other hand, I do remember the genocidal European invaders to the Americas. And, as I live in America, it does look rather European to me (and though it is supplemented by Hispanics, these are not the Native Americans that once lived here in abundance).

Another genocidal group of invaders is the so-called (fake) "Jews" to Israel. Where once were Palestinians, now there are Jews.

I was in London the other day and I saw more head-covered females than I recall seeing in Beirut 1983. Make of that what you will, but Beirut used to be on par with many European capitals only a few decades ago, and then it descended into sectarian hell as selected groups decided to assert their will. One need only wonder how long before the same will happen to London … we’ve already seen grisly decapitations of soldiers and tourists by persons of the religion of peace, so one might posit we are already there. France is an even better example of a society at risk. Belgium is even worse. Sweden is almost a lost cause and is desperately backstroking in the hopes that its basic civil society can be saved, but it may be too late for Sweden.

The European project hoped it could overcome its historical tendencies toward ethnic cleansing, but the reality is that the relatively long European peace since WWII was likely the result of the ethnic realignment that occurred after WWII, and the recent ethnic re-balancing that has been allowed by European governments has, instead of bringing a new diversity that will ensure further peace, resulted in a destabilising ethnic balance that will only be accommodated by further ethnic and sectarian violence of the most extreme sort.

Nowadays, when I read the anti-Muslim literature in the US, I go back and read some of the anti-Jewish literature from Nazi Germany. Suffice to say, the German literature was far more humane and moderate than what I read today from the Islamophobes (whose leaders, “ironically”, are largely Jews).

Simply replace Muslim with Jew in the above and you will get the point.

You might argue, but Muslims have killed X thousand Westerners over the last 20 years! LOL, Nazis thought VASTLY worse of Jews. Moreover, from the flip side, the “West” has in the meantime killed millions of Muslims. Hence if one particular side is aggressive, barbaric and murderous, it’s not the Muslim side; it’s rather the West, a tradition which has continued for many centuries.

By the way, for those who don't know, the hate-monger who wrote this text is herself a South African Jew - ironically her parents were once opposed to Apartheid but now she is advocating for a new Apartheid herself, perhaps using the Israeli "Wall of Separation" and "occupation" precedents.

Whilst she calls herself a "paleoconservative", the fact that she is brandishing the Jew supremacist neocon "Class of Civilizations" hammer shows her to be a fraud and where her true loyalties lie.

And why are you - IslamoFascist ingrate parasite - originally from Islamistan Pakistan, still squatting in that Canadian-bacon pig farm? Mooching off of benevolent Canadian Christians, you IslamoFascist parasite?

If Islam is so great, why don't you go back to Pakistan, you anti-Christian, ingrate, bigot, IslamoFascist parasite?

On the other hand, I do remember the genocidal European invaders to the Americas. And, as I live in America, it does look rather European to me (and though it is supplemented by Hispanics, these are not the Native Americans that once lived here in abundance).

Another genocidal group of invaders is the so-called (fake) “Jews” to Israel. Where once were Palestinians, now there are Jews.

Christian Middle East has been completely ethnically cleansed of indigenous peoples. There were no Muslims in Middle East. Indigenous Christians either forced out, forcibly Islamized , or exterminated. Do you know who were the original Egyptians, for example? Coptics, who have been reduced to a barely surviving minority in their own lands by Muslim Arab invaders.

Muslim Turk invaders were stopped at the Gates of Vienna: otherwise Europe too would have ethnically cleansed or forcibly Islamized.

Spainiards were able to resist the attempt to ethnically cleanse or Islamize them by Muslim Arab invaders. After centuries of the Arab Muslim yoke, Christian Spaniards cleansed their body of the infestation. Thank God.

{On the other hand, I do remember the genocidal European invaders to the Americas.}

Your memory is faulty.
Europeans did not come to North America to commit genocide.
There were atrocities and massacres: no doubt.
But there was no genocide.
About 80% of Natives died as a result of infections they were inadvertently exposed to, brought by Europeans (...who were immune).

{Muslim invaders genocidal? That’s funny...}

No, it's not funny.
Muslim Turk invaders exterminated about 4 million indigenous Christians of Asia Minor: Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks.
Planned, organized, executed mass-murder: Genocide.
The Muslim Turk invaders are still there.
All but about 80,000 Christians are gone.

{So, tell me again, ...}

I just did, Effendi IslamoFascist anti-Christian troll.

As to Palestians and Jews: I don't have a dog in that fight.
You got the wrong party: I am Armenian, Armenian Apostolic Church Christian.

Nowadays, when I read the anti-Muslim literature in the US, I go back and read some of the anti-Jewish literature from Nazi Germany. Suffice to say, the German literature was far more humane and moderate than what I read today from the Islamophobes (whose leaders, "ironically", are largely Jews).

Simply replace Muslim with Jew in the above and you will get the point.

You might argue, but Muslims have killed X thousand Westerners over the last 20 years! LOL, Nazis thought VASTLY worse of Jews. Moreover, from the flip side, the "West" has in the meantime killed millions of Muslims. Hence if one particular side is aggressive, barbaric and murderous, it's not the Muslim side; it's rather the West, a tradition which has continued for many centuries.

By the way, for those who don’t know, the hate-monger who wrote this text is herself a South African Jew – ironically her parents were once opposed to Apartheid but now she is advocating for a new Apartheid herself, perhaps using the Israeli “Wall of Separation” and “occupation” precedents.

Whilst she calls herself a “paleoconservative”, the fact that she is brandishing the Jew supremacist neocon “Class of Civilizations” hammer shows her to be a fraud and where her true loyalties lie.

What if the idea of living with your own people wasn’t so insulting? Why do people feel insulted by this idea? It’s not hatred, it’s respect for each others boundaries. Kind of like the 18 inch rule for countries. It doesn’t stop trade or friendship, travel. But sometimes people just can’t live together. I doubt the Aztecs would want to live like the hunter/gatherers who believed in a supreme father American Indians. One side has empires and the other side of the desert divide does not.
Mashing all these peoples and belief together is not healthy. It’s not to say that we are all not human, it just means we all can’t live together. Even people of the same color find life difficult with those whose ideas are different.

I'm not a multi-culturalist. And I believe that separate but equal is a valid principle (with due regard: if one can advocate expelling Muslims, it's equally fair to advocate expelling Jews, or anyone else who refuses to assimilate, which Jews have refused for longer than anyone else in history, over two millenia).

However, what this hate-monger author writes is separate and superior. She ignores all the crimes committed against the countries these people are from and that the motive is most often revenge. She ignores that the vast majority of Muslims, despite all the crimes committed against this group by Israel and the "West" since, well, centuries, have no animosity against Westerners. She ignores that the radical elements are actually one specific sect, Wahhabists, who are not even Muslims, and who are virtually all indoctrinated by Saudi Arabia, with the full support of the "West" (and Israel).

Really what is going on here is a plan to foment a Clash of Civilizations. The West, through its proxy Saudi Arabia, opens terrorist indoctrination centers around the world in the name of Islam (which is a lie because Wahhabism, the official religion of Saudi Arabia, is not Islam), called madrassas (Islamic boarding schools), and brainwashes children from a tender age in all-day sessions to be radical and fight the Wahhabist twisted version of "jihad".

Then the West supports Israel's glacial ethnic cleansing in Palestine (a constant rubbing of salt in a festering wound) and makes undeclared, unprovoked war against countless (moderate, Wahhabist-suppressing) governments, killing vast numbers of innocents and turning the countries into failed warlord states. Those who have been brainwashed in the Saudi madrassas to be intolerant jihadist terrorists, see these events as their cue.

In short, the "West" creates both the radicals (through their Saudi madrassas), and their motive (though endless ethnic cleansing and war against Muslims). It is really quite scientific how it works - it is behaviorist psychology (Skinner, Pavlov, etc.).

This is a conscious plan, because people like Mercer want the radicals to attack the West. Because they want a Clash of Civilizations and they know they cannot get the "goy" to destroy Islam without bringing these radicalized jihadists into the West to return some of the "favors".

All we know is that Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha is an Iraqi immigrant.
And Mona does not sound like a name that would be given to Muslim girl.

Nevertheless, I will assume she is a Muslim Iraqi immigrant.
So?

There are immigrants from all over the world doing wonderful things in US.
If she had not immigrated to US, where she became an MD, nobody knows where she'd end up in life. If not her, somebody else would have eventually done what she did.

Immigrants do (mostly) fine here primarily not because of who or what they are.
They do great, because of the immense opportunities - primarily - this country gives immigrants. For every Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, there are 10s of 1,000s of Iraqis who would have done much better if they had the luck to get into US. And there are 10s of 1,000s of Dr. Lees, Dr. Guptas etc from non-Muslim counties who are just as good. So why invite trouble?
For every Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, God knows how many 1,000s are there of young, ingrate Muslim immigrants to US or their progeny who grow up hating Americans and America.

And one for the road:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting

Dr of Psychiatry radicalized Muslim Nidal Hasan, son of Muslim immigrants given shelter in Christian American, a U.S. Army major, murders 13 fellow Americans and wounds or maims 30 others.

{Maybe we should keep the Muslim immigrants and deport some Unz Review commenters.}

We'll start with you: which Muslim country would you like to be deported to? Iraq; Pakistan; Saudi Arabia;.......?

For every Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, God knows how many 1,000s are there of young, ingrate Muslim immigrants to US

You seem to be just making stuff up. There are thousands of Muslim doctors in the US, many of whom are immigrants. Muslims cause very few problems, and if I had to chose a group to export into a lake of fire it would be white nationalists. I’d feel bad about it for a couple minutes, though.

With all due respect this is all hogwash! In reality payback is hell for the old colonialists in Europe colonizing India, ME and Africa for their human services and now replaced by the New Colonialists of the North America colonizing the same regions for their resources! It’s all about the money stupid! The immigrants from those regions are trying anything for their voices to be heard but unfortunately the voices are falling on deaf ears!

I stand corrected then.
That is why I stipulated that, for argument's sake, I'll assume the good Doctor is Muslim.

OK, here it comes: since you only 'hit' me with a 'gimme', which other of my assertions in that post do you agree or disagree with?

Yo Avery,

As to your other points – I agree with quite a bit. I think there is no doubt that the (generally) open meritocracy is a great boon and strength of the US and Europe – the capable are allowed to rise to the top. One of the most obvious examples of this (something that I heard from a Muslim scholar who studied in Africa) is that Obama can actually become President in the US, while in Kenya he would have had no chance because of the tribe his father belonged to!

I don’t know if anyone else would have done what she did (though I don’t necessarily credit this solely to her being a Muslim) – plenty people are docile and will not push much further when pushed back, but it looks like she really pushed the system on behalf of those that were adversely affected.

As far as the comment about thousands of angry ungrateful young Muslims – I can definitely see this apply to those throngs crossing into Europe and trashing European cities. But in the US, I have my ear to the ground and most Muslims appreciate life and feel blessed to live here. Are they upset with US foreign policy – hell yes! But so are many of the commentators on this site. They are also appreciative of the freedoms here – there is actually less fear of being outwardly religious here than in many countries because they think you might be becoming radical and you will get picked up and detained – even for sporting a beard or something. Are they also disturbed by rabid feminism and militant atheism and rampant degeneracy and the increasing police state – hell yes! But so are many of the commentators on this site.

The violent ones tend to get the most attention and, no doubt, the Muslim community has to try harder to keep this under control. I have noticed a disturbing trend in the Muslim youth to ape inner-city thug behavior – this and not knowing enough about the tradition to be susceptible to being reeled in by internet-savvy extremists is the danger I see.

What if the idea of living with your own people wasn't so insulting? Why do people feel insulted by this idea? It's not hatred, it's respect for each others boundaries. Kind of like the 18 inch rule for countries. It doesn't stop trade or friendship, travel. But sometimes people just can't live together. I doubt the Aztecs would want to live like the hunter/gatherers who believed in a supreme father American Indians. One side has empires and the other side of the desert divide does not.
Mashing all these peoples and belief together is not healthy. It's not to say that we are all not human, it just means we all can't live together. Even people of the same color find life difficult with those whose ideas are different.

I’m not a multi-culturalist. And I believe that separate but equal is a valid principle (with due regard: if one can advocate expelling Muslims, it’s equally fair to advocate expelling Jews, or anyone else who refuses to assimilate, which Jews have refused for longer than anyone else in history, over two millenia).

However, what this hate-monger author writes is separate and superior. She ignores all the crimes committed against the countries these people are from and that the motive is most often revenge. She ignores that the vast majority of Muslims, despite all the crimes committed against this group by Israel and the “West” since, well, centuries, have no animosity against Westerners. She ignores that the radical elements are actually one specific sect, Wahhabists, who are not even Muslims, and who are virtually all indoctrinated by Saudi Arabia, with the full support of the “West” (and Israel).

Really what is going on here is a plan to foment a Clash of Civilizations. The West, through its proxy Saudi Arabia, opens terrorist indoctrination centers around the world in the name of Islam (which is a lie because Wahhabism, the official religion of Saudi Arabia, is not Islam), called madrassas (Islamic boarding schools), and brainwashes children from a tender age in all-day sessions to be radical and fight the Wahhabist twisted version of “jihad”.

Then the West supports Israel’s glacial ethnic cleansing in Palestine (a constant rubbing of salt in a festering wound) and makes undeclared, unprovoked war against countless (moderate, Wahhabist-suppressing) governments, killing vast numbers of innocents and turning the countries into failed warlord states. Those who have been brainwashed in the Saudi madrassas to be intolerant jihadist terrorists, see these events as their cue.

In short, the “West” creates both the radicals (through their Saudi madrassas), and their motive (though endless ethnic cleansing and war against Muslims). It is really quite scientific how it works – it is behaviorist psychology (Skinner, Pavlov, etc.).

This is a conscious plan, because people like Mercer want the radicals to attack the West. Because they want a Clash of Civilizations and they know they cannot get the “goy” to destroy Islam without bringing these radicalized jihadists into the West to return some of the “favors”.

Just a note; Wahabbis (and Salafis) have certainly broken with centuries of Sunni Orthodoxy on many matters, but I don't know of any qualified Muslim scholar that has declared them to be non-Muslims. Heterodox? Certainly. Non-Muslim? No. Otherwise millions of Muslims would not pray behind them in Mecca or Madinah.

To your other points; while they have indeed been responsible for the spread of their interpretation of Islam across the Muslim world, financed by massive petro-dollar accounts. They have even been tampering with original texts in an attempt to surreptitiously insert their line of thought into the Muslim people:http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/masudq3.htmhttp://www.livingislam.org/trs_e.html

To their credit, many of their scholars have come out against terrorism:"Saudi Arabia's top clerical council, the only body in the country authorised to issue fatwas or Islamic legal opinions, declared on Wednesday that "terrorism is a heinous crime" under Sharia, and perpetrators should be made an example of."http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKBN0HC0XL20140917?sp=true

The problem is, because their interpretation has constantly called for letting people derive rulings from the source texts without proper training, they have undercut their own legitimacy and many of the followers of their interpretation simply discard their fatwas. Why? Well, because they themselves did the same to centuries of Islamic legal corpus. Which leads to the extremists that you are talking about...and unfortunately, their numbers are growing due to nonsense out their on the internet and their inability to decipher who are qualified scholars and those that are just making stuff up as they go along.

For every Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, God knows how many 1,000s are there of young, ingrate Muslim immigrants to US

You seem to be just making stuff up. There are thousands of Muslim doctors in the US, many of whom are immigrants. Muslims cause very few problems, and if I had to chose a group to export into a lake of fire it would be white nationalists. I'd feel bad about it for a couple minutes, though.

On the other hand, I do remember the genocidal European invaders to the Americas. And, as I live in America, it does look rather European to me (and though it is supplemented by Hispanics, these are not the Native Americans that once lived here in abundance).

Another genocidal group of invaders is the so-called (fake) "Jews" to Israel. Where once were Palestinians, now there are Jews.

Christian Middle East has been completely ethnically cleansed of indigenous peoples. There were no Muslims in Middle East. Indigenous Christians either forced out, forcibly Islamized , or exterminated. Do you know who were the original Egyptians, for example? Coptics, who have been reduced to a barely surviving minority in their own lands by Muslim Arab invaders.

Muslim Turk invaders were stopped at the Gates of Vienna: otherwise Europe too would have ethnically cleansed or forcibly Islamized.

Spainiards were able to resist the attempt to ethnically cleanse or Islamize them by Muslim Arab invaders. After centuries of the Arab Muslim yoke, Christian Spaniards cleansed their body of the infestation. Thank God.

{On the other hand, I do remember the genocidal European invaders to the Americas.}

Your memory is faulty.
Europeans did not come to North America to commit genocide.
There were atrocities and massacres: no doubt.
But there was no genocide.
About 80% of Natives died as a result of infections they were inadvertently exposed to, brought by Europeans (…who were immune).

{Muslim invaders genocidal? That’s funny…}

No, it’s not funny.
Muslim Turk invaders exterminated about 4 million indigenous Christians of Asia Minor: Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks.Planned, organized, executed mass-murder: Genocide.
The Muslim Turk invaders are still there.
All but about 80,000 Christians are gone.

{So, tell me again, …}

I just did, Effendi IslamoFascist anti-Christian troll.

As to Palestians and Jews: I don’t have a dog in that fight.
You got the wrong party: I am Armenian, Armenian Apostolic Church Christian.

Christian Middle East has been completely ethnically cleansed of indigenous peoples. There were no Muslims in Middle East.

Unlike Jews, who are a tribe (Judaism is a group of religions), Muslims are adherents of a faith, Islam. It is true that many Christians converted to Islam, either peacefully or by force, but I am missing the ethnic cleansing. The same ethnic groups (Arabs) that lived in the ME before continue to live there.

You might make the argument that conversion is "ethnic cleansing". If that is the case, you might look at the "Christian West", there are hardly any Christians left at all. Sure, there are many who call themselves "Christian", but to a Christian of 1000 years ago, they would call them infidels/heathens. So in fact the "secular humanist" Communism that is prevalent in the West has done a far better job of "ideological" ethnic cleansing than Islam ever did.

Unfortunately for the Native American victims of European Christians, even those that converted to Christianity were, in the end, slaughtered or forced into concentration camps.

Do you know who were the original Egyptians, for example? Coptics, who have been reduced to a barely surviving minority in their own lands by Muslim Arab invaders.

Actually an estimated 10-14 million Coptics continue to live in Egypt, at least before the "Muslim Brotherhood" (which is a politicized Islam controlled by the "West") took power. I note also that Saddam Hussein, Mohammar Qaddafi and Bashar al-Assad all protect(ed) Christians, and it is the "Christian West", as you fancy it, who has removed them from power to facilitate the expulsion of the remaining Christians by radical Wahhabists indoctrinated by the "West" and its Saudi BFF (see my comment above).

Muslim Turk invaders were stopped at the Gates of Vienna: otherwise Europe too would have ethnically cleansed or forcibly Islamized.

So you claim .... But then historical knowledge is not your strong point.

Spainiards were able to resist the attempt to ethnically cleanse or Islamize them by Muslim Arab invaders. After centuries of the Arab Muslim yoke, Christian Spaniards cleansed their body of the infestation. Thank God.

The fact is Spain was a caliphate, in part, for over 7 centuries. Christians, Jews and Muslims lived together peacefully. Your claims are utter lies.

In fact this was the time of the "pinnacle" of Muslim sciences and philosophy, while Eruope was still stuck in the Dark Ages.

By the way, what do you think happened to non-Catholics in Europe during this period? The Muslims were actually quite more tolerant than their Catholic counterparts.

Europeans did not come to North America to commit genocide.There were atrocities and massacres: no doubt.But there was no genocide.About 80% of Natives died as a result of infections they were inadvertently exposed to, brought by Europeans (…who were immune).

Europeans came to conquer, whether or not they intended to kill all the natives or not is not easily answered, I am sure many did and many did not, but I don't know how to get a reliable poll. I always think the best way to judge is to look at facts rather than what you speculate people might have intended or thought. The facts are Native Ameericans in North America north of the Rio Grande (i.e., north of Mexico today) were reduced from 10 million to just 250,000, which remnants were place din concentration camps which, at the time, wree thought to be the least valuable available land. If that's not genocide, I don't know what is.

Prove to me that all Muslims wanted to exterminate Christians when they came to Spain .... lol

For more on my thoughts on this, and why you are utterly wrong (including with the dieases argument), see my post here.

Yeah well there is dispute over that as well. But unlike you I am not a shameless denier, despite the fact that the evidence of Native American genocide is 1,000 times stronger and in fact undeniable for all but the most motivated racist.

I just did, Effendi IslamoFascist anti-Christian troll.

I'm not Muslim or a fascit, you ignorant Christian-fascist Islamophobic genocide apologist.

Let's keep it factual. While there was certainly a takeover of the ancient Christian lands, there was no policy of forced conversions or ethnic cleansing. You will find no academic work stating otherwise. A good example is what "To begin with, there was no forced conversion, no choice between “Islam and the sword.” Islamic law, following a clear Quranic principle, prohibited any such thing: dhimmis must be allowed to practice their religion. When Muslim armies encountered non-Muslims outside the lands already under the rule of Islam, they were supposed to offer them the choice of conversion to Islam; payment of jizya and acceptance of dhimmi status; or trying the fortunes of war. If the adversaries chose the last of these three and then lost, they faced expropriation, slavery, or even death. Even then, however, they must not be converted forcibly. And in fact, although there have been instances of forced conversion in Islamic history, these have been exceptional....""The larger context was an increase of tension and isolation among Christian communities that, having adopted the Arabic language among themselves, and having come to realize that the rule of Islam was definitively there to stay, found their own numbers decreasing through peaceful conversion to Islam.”Michael Bonner - Jihad in Islamic History http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8280.html

"Thus, in return for submission and the payment of the jizya, the poll tax, Islam guaranteed the people of the Book security of life, property and protection in the exercise of their religions. Dhimmis had full autonomy under the leadership of their religious chiefs. Each community exercised jurisdiction over matters of personal status, such as marriage, divorce and inheritance. So long as they submitted to the Muslim state and paid the jizya, Christians and Jews were left alone to run their own lives without interference...The jizya, which adult, sane dhimmi males paid for protection and exemption from military service, was reasonable and not oppressive...Although tolerated, protected, and many of them well-to-do, Christians and Jews were not without complaints under Islamic rule. They lived under certain legal and social disabilities. They were considered subjects, not citizens on an equal level with Muslims. Muslims were first class, dhimmis second."http://www.syriacstudies.com/2013/07/09/christians-and-jews-under-islam-najib-saliba-phd/ (Prof. Najib Saliba - Lebanese Orthodox Christian)

Copts themselves acknowledge historically that there was no forced conversion:"Copts, despite additional sumptuary laws that were imposed on them in 750-868 A.D. and 905-935 A.D. under the Abbasid Dynasties, prospered and their Church enjoyed one of its most peaceful era. Surviving literature from monastic centers, dating back from the 8th to the 11th century, shows no drastic break in the activities of Coptic craftsmen, such as weavers, leather-binders, painters, and wood-workers."

They do lament some of the later restrictions imposed on them once the Shafi'i school takes dominance..."The Christian face of Egypt started to change by the beginning of the second millennium A.D., when Copts, in addition to the "Gezya" tax, suffered from specific disabilities, some of which were serious and interfered with their freedom of worship."

http://www.coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/

Also, Nassim Taleb (Lebanese Orthodox Christian of Black Swan fame) outlines how the conversion of a society from one religion to another is easily accomplished by crunching numbers over the centuries - requires little violence - just certain simple forward-thinking policies; no preaching of another religion to Muslims and marriage to female People of the Book, but not the other way around.

Read the section THE ONE-WAY STREET OF RELIGIONShttp://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf

While I think the numbers you state for the massacres is on the high side - I've seen more reliable numbers at half of those (unless you've got some reliable academic sources to back you up), there is little doubt that the Ottoman Empire went hyper-violent in its latest stage when it was taken over by nationalist Turks and was losing war after war and territory after territory. It was as you stated: Planned, organized, executed mass-murder: Genocide.

Professor Solomon Nigosian, is an excellent historian and minister in the Armenian Evangelical Church (http://library.vicu.utoronto.ca/collections/special_collections/f43_solomon_alexander_nigosian)

Has written a very balanced book on Islam and Islamic history (the good and the bad of it) - he states nothing about forced conversions and clears up a lot of nonsense pinned on Islam. If you won't listen to anyone other than an Armenian on the subject, then it is highly recommended read:https://www.amazon.com/Islam-Its-History-Teaching-Practices/dp/0253216273/

Christian Middle East has been completely ethnically cleansed of indigenous peoples. There were no Muslims in Middle East. Indigenous Christians either forced out, forcibly Islamized , or exterminated. Do you know who were the original Egyptians, for example? Coptics, who have been reduced to a barely surviving minority in their own lands by Muslim Arab invaders.

Muslim Turk invaders were stopped at the Gates of Vienna: otherwise Europe too would have ethnically cleansed or forcibly Islamized.

Spainiards were able to resist the attempt to ethnically cleanse or Islamize them by Muslim Arab invaders. After centuries of the Arab Muslim yoke, Christian Spaniards cleansed their body of the infestation. Thank God.

{On the other hand, I do remember the genocidal European invaders to the Americas.}

Your memory is faulty.
Europeans did not come to North America to commit genocide.
There were atrocities and massacres: no doubt.
But there was no genocide.
About 80% of Natives died as a result of infections they were inadvertently exposed to, brought by Europeans (...who were immune).

{Muslim invaders genocidal? That’s funny...}

No, it's not funny.
Muslim Turk invaders exterminated about 4 million indigenous Christians of Asia Minor: Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks.
Planned, organized, executed mass-murder: Genocide.
The Muslim Turk invaders are still there.
All but about 80,000 Christians are gone.

{So, tell me again, ...}

I just did, Effendi IslamoFascist anti-Christian troll.

As to Palestians and Jews: I don't have a dog in that fight.
You got the wrong party: I am Armenian, Armenian Apostolic Church Christian.

Christian Middle East has been completely ethnically cleansed of indigenous peoples. There were no Muslims in Middle East.

Unlike Jews, who are a tribe (Judaism is a group of religions), Muslims are adherents of a faith, Islam. It is true that many Christians converted to Islam, either peacefully or by force, but I am missing the ethnic cleansing. The same ethnic groups (Arabs) that lived in the ME before continue to live there.

You might make the argument that conversion is “ethnic cleansing”. If that is the case, you might look at the “Christian West”, there are hardly any Christians left at all. Sure, there are many who call themselves “Christian”, but to a Christian of 1000 years ago, they would call them infidels/heathens. So in fact the “secular humanist” Communism that is prevalent in the West has done a far better job of “ideological” ethnic cleansing than Islam ever did.

Unfortunately for the Native American victims of European Christians, even those that converted to Christianity were, in the end, slaughtered or forced into concentration camps.

Do you know who were the original Egyptians, for example? Coptics, who have been reduced to a barely surviving minority in their own lands by Muslim Arab invaders.

Actually an estimated 10-14 million Coptics continue to live in Egypt, at least before the “Muslim Brotherhood” (which is a politicized Islam controlled by the “West”) took power. I note also that Saddam Hussein, Mohammar Qaddafi and Bashar al-Assad all protect(ed) Christians, and it is the “Christian West”, as you fancy it, who has removed them from power to facilitate the expulsion of the remaining Christians by radical Wahhabists indoctrinated by the “West” and its Saudi BFF (see my comment above).

Muslim Turk invaders were stopped at the Gates of Vienna: otherwise Europe too would have ethnically cleansed or forcibly Islamized.

So you claim …. But then historical knowledge is not your strong point.

Spainiards were able to resist the attempt to ethnically cleanse or Islamize them by Muslim Arab invaders. After centuries of the Arab Muslim yoke, Christian Spaniards cleansed their body of the infestation. Thank God.

The fact is Spain was a caliphate, in part, for over 7 centuries. Christians, Jews and Muslims lived together peacefully. Your claims are utter lies.

In fact this was the time of the “pinnacle” of Muslim sciences and philosophy, while Eruope was still stuck in the Dark Ages.

By the way, what do you think happened to non-Catholics in Europe during this period? The Muslims were actually quite more tolerant than their Catholic counterparts.

Europeans did not come to North America to commit genocide.
There were atrocities and massacres: no doubt.
But there was no genocide.
About 80% of Natives died as a result of infections they were inadvertently exposed to, brought by Europeans (…who were immune).

Europeans came to conquer, whether or not they intended to kill all the natives or not is not easily answered, I am sure many did and many did not, but I don’t know how to get a reliable poll. I always think the best way to judge is to look at facts rather than what you speculate people might have intended or thought. The facts are Native Ameericans in North America north of the Rio Grande (i.e., north of Mexico today) were reduced from 10 million to just 250,000, which remnants were place din concentration camps which, at the time, wree thought to be the least valuable available land. If that’s not genocide, I don’t know what is.

Prove to me that all Muslims wanted to exterminate Christians when they came to Spain …. lol

For more on my thoughts on this, and why you are utterly wrong (including with the dieases argument), see my post here.

You, sir, are a Native American genocide denier.

Muslim Turk invaders exterminated about 4 million indigenous Christians of Asia Minor: Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks.
Planned, organized, executed mass-murder: Genocide.
The Muslim Turk invaders are still there.
All but about 80,000 Christians are gone.

Yeah well there is dispute over that as well. But unlike you I am not a shameless denier, despite the fact that the evidence of Native American genocide is 1,000 times stronger and in fact undeniable for all but the most motivated racist.

I just did, Effendi IslamoFascist anti-Christian troll.

I’m not Muslim or a fascit, you ignorant Christian-fascist Islamophobic genocide apologist.

You are spouting outright lies. You claim the case for the alleged genocide of native Americans is 1000 times stronger than mass murders and mini-genocides committed by Muslims I presume and you are wrong. And they didn't all die at the hands of the evil white man.

Although estimates vary widely, the most plausible estimates I've seen are around 2.5 million so called native Americans (ever heard of Kennewick man?) here at the time European settlers began arriving with the landing of the Mayflower. Through disease, starvation, and warfare with the white man and other Indians they were reduced to around 800K. Today there are 5.4 million native Americans living in the U.S on sovereign territory ceded to them by the "genocidal" U.S government. Not bad for being victims of an alleged genocide.

Some Indian tribes were capable of shocking levels of brutality against both European settlers and rival Indian tribes, but go ahead and cling to the fiction that they were highly spiritual, civilized and non-violent people undeserving of the fate which befell them.

The 10 million figure you are using for Indians living North of the Rio Grande is highly inflated. But even if they were reduced to 250K (that number is way too low) the fact that they've grown to 5.4 million means they've increased more than 20 times in less than 150 years. What group of non-Muslims living under Muslim rule has experienced that kind of population growth?

I'm not a multi-culturalist. And I believe that separate but equal is a valid principle (with due regard: if one can advocate expelling Muslims, it's equally fair to advocate expelling Jews, or anyone else who refuses to assimilate, which Jews have refused for longer than anyone else in history, over two millenia).

However, what this hate-monger author writes is separate and superior. She ignores all the crimes committed against the countries these people are from and that the motive is most often revenge. She ignores that the vast majority of Muslims, despite all the crimes committed against this group by Israel and the "West" since, well, centuries, have no animosity against Westerners. She ignores that the radical elements are actually one specific sect, Wahhabists, who are not even Muslims, and who are virtually all indoctrinated by Saudi Arabia, with the full support of the "West" (and Israel).

Really what is going on here is a plan to foment a Clash of Civilizations. The West, through its proxy Saudi Arabia, opens terrorist indoctrination centers around the world in the name of Islam (which is a lie because Wahhabism, the official religion of Saudi Arabia, is not Islam), called madrassas (Islamic boarding schools), and brainwashes children from a tender age in all-day sessions to be radical and fight the Wahhabist twisted version of "jihad".

Then the West supports Israel's glacial ethnic cleansing in Palestine (a constant rubbing of salt in a festering wound) and makes undeclared, unprovoked war against countless (moderate, Wahhabist-suppressing) governments, killing vast numbers of innocents and turning the countries into failed warlord states. Those who have been brainwashed in the Saudi madrassas to be intolerant jihadist terrorists, see these events as their cue.

In short, the "West" creates both the radicals (through their Saudi madrassas), and their motive (though endless ethnic cleansing and war against Muslims). It is really quite scientific how it works - it is behaviorist psychology (Skinner, Pavlov, etc.).

This is a conscious plan, because people like Mercer want the radicals to attack the West. Because they want a Clash of Civilizations and they know they cannot get the "goy" to destroy Islam without bringing these radicalized jihadists into the West to return some of the "favors".

Hey CalDre,

Just a note; Wahabbis (and Salafis) have certainly broken with centuries of Sunni Orthodoxy on many matters, but I don’t know of any qualified Muslim scholar that has declared them to be non-Muslims. Heterodox? Certainly. Non-Muslim? No. Otherwise millions of Muslims would not pray behind them in Mecca or Madinah.

To your other points; while they have indeed been responsible for the spread of their interpretation of Islam across the Muslim world, financed by massive petro-dollar accounts. They have even been tampering with original texts in an attempt to surreptitiously insert their line of thought into the Muslim people:

To their credit, many of their scholars have come out against terrorism:
“Saudi Arabia’s top clerical council, the only body in the country authorised to issue fatwas or Islamic legal opinions, declared on Wednesday that “terrorism is a heinous crime” under Sharia, and perpetrators should be made an example of.”

The problem is, because their interpretation has constantly called for letting people derive rulings from the source texts without proper training, they have undercut their own legitimacy and many of the followers of their interpretation simply discard their fatwas. Why? Well, because they themselves did the same to centuries of Islamic legal corpus. Which leads to the extremists that you are talking about…and unfortunately, their numbers are growing due to nonsense out their on the internet and their inability to decipher who are qualified scholars and those that are just making stuff up as they go along.

Of course now that Wahhabism has been around a long time, it's difficult to claim it is not part of Islam even if at its core it is fundamentally at odds with "true" Islam (which actually is a peaceful religion). Just like it is hard to argue that followers of the Scofield Reference Bible and their anti-Christian theology is not Christian, since they claim to be. I guess it's a question of nomenclature, I could believe anything and claim I am a Muslim and if I get enough followers I suppose I would be. The danger therefor is in "lumping" all people who call themselves Muslim together. That's why, to his credit, Trump uses the term "radical Islam", though really he should be using the term "Salafists" or "Wahhabists".

To their credit, many of their scholars have come out against terrorism:“Saudi Arabia’s top clerical council, the only body in the country authorised to issue fatwas or Islamic legal opinions, declared on Wednesday that “terrorism is a heinous crime” under Sharia, and perpetrators should be made an example of.”

I think this fatwa is about the fact that the monarchy is opposed to radicals committing terrorism inside Saudi Arabia and threatening their own rule. It is not a general fatwa against Wahhabism, which, indeed, is their state religion. If you understand Wahhabism you know that killing Shi'as, orthodox Sunnis, Christians, Jews, pagans, etc. is notterrorism, it is jihad (which, according to Wahhabiam, is religious duty), and hence the fatwa does not apply.

Now if you find a fatwa from the leading Saudi clerics (not the State-paid ones used to defang Wahhabism for "Western" audiences, but the ones that carry real influence) that says to accept and live in peace with Shi'a, orthodox Sunnis, Christians, etc. (again, not in some made-for-export writing but in sermons in their mosques), I could be convinced that they are reversing their direction.

I have seen documentaries of what they teach in their madrassas. They interview the children. It's all about killing apostates (i.e., anyone not also an (extremist) Wahhabi).

The problem is, because their interpretation has constantly called for letting people derive rulings from the source texts without proper training, they have undercut their own legitimacy and many of the followers of their interpretation simply discard their fatwas.

I respectfully completely with your insinuation that Takfiris are some aberration from Wahhabism. That's what they are at their core. They believe their is "one right" interpretation Islam (which actually is 100% wrong), and any Muslim who rejects their interepration is an apostate who deserves death. As I wrote earlier, it is a totalitarian death cult.

Christian Middle East has been completely ethnically cleansed of indigenous peoples. There were no Muslims in Middle East. Indigenous Christians either forced out, forcibly Islamized , or exterminated. Do you know who were the original Egyptians, for example? Coptics, who have been reduced to a barely surviving minority in their own lands by Muslim Arab invaders.

Muslim Turk invaders were stopped at the Gates of Vienna: otherwise Europe too would have ethnically cleansed or forcibly Islamized.

Spainiards were able to resist the attempt to ethnically cleanse or Islamize them by Muslim Arab invaders. After centuries of the Arab Muslim yoke, Christian Spaniards cleansed their body of the infestation. Thank God.

{On the other hand, I do remember the genocidal European invaders to the Americas.}

Your memory is faulty.
Europeans did not come to North America to commit genocide.
There were atrocities and massacres: no doubt.
But there was no genocide.
About 80% of Natives died as a result of infections they were inadvertently exposed to, brought by Europeans (...who were immune).

{Muslim invaders genocidal? That’s funny...}

No, it's not funny.
Muslim Turk invaders exterminated about 4 million indigenous Christians of Asia Minor: Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks.
Planned, organized, executed mass-murder: Genocide.
The Muslim Turk invaders are still there.
All but about 80,000 Christians are gone.

{So, tell me again, ...}

I just did, Effendi IslamoFascist anti-Christian troll.

As to Palestians and Jews: I don't have a dog in that fight.
You got the wrong party: I am Armenian, Armenian Apostolic Church Christian.

Yo Avery,

Let’s keep it factual. While there was certainly a takeover of the ancient Christian lands, there was no policy of forced conversions or ethnic cleansing. You will find no academic work stating otherwise. A good example is what
“To begin with, there was no forced conversion, no choice between “Islam and the sword.” Islamic law, following a clear Quranic principle, prohibited any such thing: dhimmis must be allowed to practice their religion. When Muslim armies encountered non-Muslims outside the lands already under the rule of Islam, they were supposed to offer them the choice of conversion to Islam; payment of jizya and acceptance of dhimmi status; or trying the fortunes of war. If the adversaries chose the last of these three and then lost, they faced expropriation, slavery, or even death. Even then, however, they must not be converted forcibly. And in fact, although there have been instances of forced conversion in Islamic history, these have been exceptional….”
“The larger context was an increase of tension and isolation among Christian communities that, having adopted the Arabic language among themselves, and having come to realize that the rule of Islam was definitively there to stay, found their own numbers decreasing through peaceful conversion to Islam.”
Michael Bonner – Jihad in Islamic History

“Thus, in return for submission and the payment of the jizya, the poll tax, Islam guaranteed the people of the Book security of life, property and protection in the exercise of their religions. Dhimmis had full autonomy under the leadership of their religious chiefs. Each community exercised jurisdiction over matters of personal status, such as marriage, divorce and inheritance. So long as they submitted to the Muslim state and paid the jizya, Christians and Jews were left alone to run their own lives without interference…The jizya, which adult, sane dhimmi males paid for protection and exemption from military service, was reasonable and not oppressive…Although tolerated, protected, and many of them well-to-do, Christians and Jews were not without complaints under Islamic rule. They lived under certain legal and social disabilities. They were considered subjects, not citizens on an equal level with Muslims. Muslims were first class, dhimmis second.”http://www.syriacstudies.com/2013/07/09/christians-and-jews-under-islam-najib-saliba-phd/ (Prof. Najib Saliba – Lebanese Orthodox Christian)

Copts themselves acknowledge historically that there was no forced conversion:
“Copts, despite additional sumptuary laws that were imposed on them in 750-868 A.D. and 905-935 A.D. under the Abbasid Dynasties, prospered and their Church enjoyed one of its most peaceful era. Surviving literature from monastic centers, dating back from the 8th to the 11th century, shows no drastic break in the activities of Coptic craftsmen, such as weavers, leather-binders, painters, and wood-workers.”

They do lament some of the later restrictions imposed on them once the Shafi’i school takes dominance…
“The Christian face of Egypt started to change by the beginning of the second millennium A.D., when Copts, in addition to the “Gezya” tax, suffered from specific disabilities, some of which were serious and interfered with their freedom of worship.”

Also, Nassim Taleb (Lebanese Orthodox Christian of Black Swan fame) outlines how the conversion of a society from one religion to another is easily accomplished by crunching numbers over the centuries – requires little violence – just certain simple forward-thinking policies; no preaching of another religion to Muslims and marriage to female People of the Book, but not the other way around.

While I think the numbers you state for the massacres is on the high side – I’ve seen more reliable numbers at half of those (unless you’ve got some reliable academic sources to back you up), there is little doubt that the Ottoman Empire went hyper-violent in its latest stage when it was taken over by nationalist Turks and was losing war after war and territory after territory. It was as you stated: Planned, organized, executed mass-murder: Genocide.

Has written a very balanced book on Islam and Islamic history (the good and the bad of it) – he states nothing about forced conversions and clears up a lot of nonsense pinned on Islam. If you won’t listen to anyone other than an Armenian on the subject, then it is highly recommended read:

Sorry, have to correct myself. I meant to say that he mentions no widespread history or policy about forced conversions. He definitely mentioned exceptions to the rule; for instance certain episodes of forced conversions under one or two of the Mughal emperors in India. Again, highly recommended read.

Another one is the short, but delightful: "Armies of the Muslim Conquest" which also dismisses the charge of widespread forced conversions and in fact talks about the specific military and political reasons for certain converts - for instance the Sassanid governors of Southern Yemen in order to keep their poistions and legitimacy over a growing Muslim populace.https://www.amazon.com/Armies-Muslim-Conquest-Men-at-Arms-Nicolle/dp/185532279X/

By Prof. David Nicolle; possibly the most knowledgeable man alive on the military tactics, weapons, policies and history of the initial Muslim Arab expansions. He has even done research into which individual banners were employed by the various tribes.

Hugh Kennedy says that the response of the Copts in Egypt to the Muslims was varied. I get the impression that he thinks the issue should be re-visited. They were being persecuted by the Byzantine church so it is reasonable to believe that they could have seen the invasion as an opportunity rather than a disaster. An amateur such as myself would look to see if there are sources that tell us of their status and welfare in the immediate years after the conquest. Apparently there are plenty of reliable sources that say that in many instances the Copts cooperated and aided the invasion.

Let's keep it factual. While there was certainly a takeover of the ancient Christian lands, there was no policy of forced conversions or ethnic cleansing. You will find no academic work stating otherwise. A good example is what "To begin with, there was no forced conversion, no choice between “Islam and the sword.” Islamic law, following a clear Quranic principle, prohibited any such thing: dhimmis must be allowed to practice their religion. When Muslim armies encountered non-Muslims outside the lands already under the rule of Islam, they were supposed to offer them the choice of conversion to Islam; payment of jizya and acceptance of dhimmi status; or trying the fortunes of war. If the adversaries chose the last of these three and then lost, they faced expropriation, slavery, or even death. Even then, however, they must not be converted forcibly. And in fact, although there have been instances of forced conversion in Islamic history, these have been exceptional....""The larger context was an increase of tension and isolation among Christian communities that, having adopted the Arabic language among themselves, and having come to realize that the rule of Islam was definitively there to stay, found their own numbers decreasing through peaceful conversion to Islam.”Michael Bonner - Jihad in Islamic History http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8280.html

"Thus, in return for submission and the payment of the jizya, the poll tax, Islam guaranteed the people of the Book security of life, property and protection in the exercise of their religions. Dhimmis had full autonomy under the leadership of their religious chiefs. Each community exercised jurisdiction over matters of personal status, such as marriage, divorce and inheritance. So long as they submitted to the Muslim state and paid the jizya, Christians and Jews were left alone to run their own lives without interference...The jizya, which adult, sane dhimmi males paid for protection and exemption from military service, was reasonable and not oppressive...Although tolerated, protected, and many of them well-to-do, Christians and Jews were not without complaints under Islamic rule. They lived under certain legal and social disabilities. They were considered subjects, not citizens on an equal level with Muslims. Muslims were first class, dhimmis second."http://www.syriacstudies.com/2013/07/09/christians-and-jews-under-islam-najib-saliba-phd/ (Prof. Najib Saliba - Lebanese Orthodox Christian)

Copts themselves acknowledge historically that there was no forced conversion:"Copts, despite additional sumptuary laws that were imposed on them in 750-868 A.D. and 905-935 A.D. under the Abbasid Dynasties, prospered and their Church enjoyed one of its most peaceful era. Surviving literature from monastic centers, dating back from the 8th to the 11th century, shows no drastic break in the activities of Coptic craftsmen, such as weavers, leather-binders, painters, and wood-workers."

They do lament some of the later restrictions imposed on them once the Shafi'i school takes dominance..."The Christian face of Egypt started to change by the beginning of the second millennium A.D., when Copts, in addition to the "Gezya" tax, suffered from specific disabilities, some of which were serious and interfered with their freedom of worship."

http://www.coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/

Also, Nassim Taleb (Lebanese Orthodox Christian of Black Swan fame) outlines how the conversion of a society from one religion to another is easily accomplished by crunching numbers over the centuries - requires little violence - just certain simple forward-thinking policies; no preaching of another religion to Muslims and marriage to female People of the Book, but not the other way around.

Read the section THE ONE-WAY STREET OF RELIGIONShttp://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf

While I think the numbers you state for the massacres is on the high side - I've seen more reliable numbers at half of those (unless you've got some reliable academic sources to back you up), there is little doubt that the Ottoman Empire went hyper-violent in its latest stage when it was taken over by nationalist Turks and was losing war after war and territory after territory. It was as you stated: Planned, organized, executed mass-murder: Genocide.

Professor Solomon Nigosian, is an excellent historian and minister in the Armenian Evangelical Church (http://library.vicu.utoronto.ca/collections/special_collections/f43_solomon_alexander_nigosian)

Has written a very balanced book on Islam and Islamic history (the good and the bad of it) - he states nothing about forced conversions and clears up a lot of nonsense pinned on Islam. If you won't listen to anyone other than an Armenian on the subject, then it is highly recommended read:https://www.amazon.com/Islam-Its-History-Teaching-Practices/dp/0253216273/

Peace.

he states nothing about forced conversions

Sorry, have to correct myself. I meant to say that he mentions no widespread history or policy about forced conversions. He definitely mentioned exceptions to the rule; for instance certain episodes of forced conversions under one or two of the Mughal emperors in India. Again, highly recommended read.

Another one is the short, but delightful: “Armies of the Muslim Conquest” which also dismisses the charge of widespread forced conversions and in fact talks about the specific military and political reasons for certain converts – for instance the Sassanid governors of Southern Yemen in order to keep their poistions and legitimacy over a growing Muslim populace.

By Prof. David Nicolle; possibly the most knowledgeable man alive on the military tactics, weapons, policies and history of the initial Muslim Arab expansions. He has even done research into which individual banners were employed by the various tribes.

It’s been said by many already but Islam and Western civilization, Muslims and white Europeans are fundamentally incompatible and no amount of well wishing or speech codes and other punitive measures by Western governments against their own native white majorities to placate Muslims will change this iron law. With few exceptions they don’t belong here and constitute a fifth column waiting to strike as their numbers and political power increases. This process is already well underway in London and other European capitals.

At minimum there should be a permanent ban on all immigration and a permanent ban on Muslim refugees while repatriating most of the ones already here. Any jihadists or would be jihadists in our midst should be executed immediately and their families deported. The hearts and mind approach does not work with Islamists (or most Muslims for that matter) and he/she will never embrace secular tenets of nihilism, liberal democracy, consumerism and metrosexuality.

The same sorts who call us “deplorable,” for wanting neighborhoods that are safe, recognizably American, maybe even a tad monocultural.

Yeah, funny how all white neighborhoods and towns, free of any racial diversity are joyous places to live. And you never have to worry about bombs going off or Jamal, Tyrone or even a Mohammad from lashing out with guns or knives, or dusky, shiftless men milling around business districts sexually assaulting white women.

Just a note; Wahabbis (and Salafis) have certainly broken with centuries of Sunni Orthodoxy on many matters, but I don't know of any qualified Muslim scholar that has declared them to be non-Muslims. Heterodox? Certainly. Non-Muslim? No. Otherwise millions of Muslims would not pray behind them in Mecca or Madinah.

To your other points; while they have indeed been responsible for the spread of their interpretation of Islam across the Muslim world, financed by massive petro-dollar accounts. They have even been tampering with original texts in an attempt to surreptitiously insert their line of thought into the Muslim people:http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/masudq3.htmhttp://www.livingislam.org/trs_e.html

To their credit, many of their scholars have come out against terrorism:"Saudi Arabia's top clerical council, the only body in the country authorised to issue fatwas or Islamic legal opinions, declared on Wednesday that "terrorism is a heinous crime" under Sharia, and perpetrators should be made an example of."http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFKBN0HC0XL20140917?sp=true

The problem is, because their interpretation has constantly called for letting people derive rulings from the source texts without proper training, they have undercut their own legitimacy and many of the followers of their interpretation simply discard their fatwas. Why? Well, because they themselves did the same to centuries of Islamic legal corpus. Which leads to the extremists that you are talking about...and unfortunately, their numbers are growing due to nonsense out their on the internet and their inability to decipher who are qualified scholars and those that are just making stuff up as they go along.

Peace.

I don’t know of any qualified Muslim scholar that has declared them to be non-Muslims.

Of course now that Wahhabism has been around a long time, it’s difficult to claim it is not part of Islam even if at its core it is fundamentally at odds with “true” Islam (which actually is a peaceful religion). Just like it is hard to argue that followers of the Scofield Reference Bible and their anti-Christian theology is not Christian, since they claim to be. I guess it’s a question of nomenclature, I could believe anything and claim I am a Muslim and if I get enough followers I suppose I would be. The danger therefor is in “lumping” all people who call themselves Muslim together. That’s why, to his credit, Trump uses the term “radical Islam”, though really he should be using the term “Salafists” or “Wahhabists”.

To their credit, many of their scholars have come out against terrorism:
“Saudi Arabia’s top clerical council, the only body in the country authorised to issue fatwas or Islamic legal opinions, declared on Wednesday that “terrorism is a heinous crime” under Sharia, and perpetrators should be made an example of.”

I think this fatwa is about the fact that the monarchy is opposed to radicals committing terrorism inside Saudi Arabia and threatening their own rule. It is not a general fatwa against Wahhabism, which, indeed, is their state religion. If you understand Wahhabism you know that killing Shi’as, orthodox Sunnis, Christians, Jews, pagans, etc. is notterrorism, it is jihad (which, according to Wahhabiam, is religious duty), and hence the fatwa does not apply.

Now if you find a fatwa from the leading Saudi clerics (not the State-paid ones used to defang Wahhabism for “Western” audiences, but the ones that carry real influence) that says to accept and live in peace with Shi’a, orthodox Sunnis, Christians, etc. (again, not in some made-for-export writing but in sermons in their mosques), I could be convinced that they are reversing their direction.

I have seen documentaries of what they teach in their madrassas. They interview the children. It’s all about killing apostates (i.e., anyone not also an (extremist) Wahhabi).

The problem is, because their interpretation has constantly called for letting people derive rulings from the source texts without proper training, they have undercut their own legitimacy and many of the followers of their interpretation simply discard their fatwas.

I respectfully completely with your insinuation that Takfiris are some aberration from Wahhabism. That’s what they are at their core. They believe their is “one right” interpretation Islam (which actually is 100% wrong), and any Muslim who rejects their interepration is an apostate who deserves death. As I wrote earlier, it is a totalitarian death cult.

Bro, you just referenced a Sunni website run by the Naqshbandi Sufi order. I am also a Sunni and belong to that same exact order (only diverging at Hazrat Mirza Mazhar Janejana [ra] of Delhi). I agree with what they are saying; Wahhabi Islam is not normative Orthodox Sunni Islam. But nothing in there states that they are not Muslim - only heterodox. One of the hallmarks of Sunni Islam is its willingness to accept other heterodoxies as Muslims even when they won't accept us as Muslim. Even Al-Azhar, has not declared them non-Muslim even though it has stated they are deviant, extremist and sinful.

As far as Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (ra), he was a very learned scholar and he had his imperfections - and he was indeed jailed for his heterodox positions and spreading of beliefs (anthropomorphism and such). Yet he is still an authority within the existing Hanbali school (though not his unsound positions). And my own teachers, Sunni Orthodox Hanafi scholars (and Sufis to boot) have mentioned him repeatedly in good terms (while discarding the incorrect and false doctrines he had - who is perfect?). This is another staple of the Sunni Orthodox - to incorporate the good where we can; for instance, one of the best books of Qur'anic exegesis is by Imam Zamakhshari (ra) - a known Mutazilite (Rationalist) - yet his work on the linguistics of the Qur'an is a staple of almost every foundational curriculum.

It gets complicated - it is not black and white.

The fatwas from the Saudis are both for inside and outside their realm:
"Although senior Wahhabi preachers endorse execution by beheading for offences that include apostasy, adultery and sorcery, oppose women driving or working and describe Shiites as heretics, they differ from Al-Qaeda and ISIS militants in opposing violent revolt."
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Aug-19/267697-saudi-top-preacher-blasts-isis-as-enemy-no1.ashx#axzz3ERkkrm1u

But, as i mentioned, they are simply denounced as "scholars for dollars" by the extremists.

Indeed the extremists are, at their core Wahabbi/Salafi, not all W/S are like them. I have met and talked with many Muslims from their background, there are certain mosques which are known to be more inundated with them as opposed to others. Some of them are very sincere and civilized individuals; they will insist you are wrong, but they do so in a very brotherly and kind way. And there are others who are simply brutish - these are the ones that are at risk for going rogue and extreme.

Again, it is not that black and white, but I applaud your efforts into digging into this complex issue and trying to seek out the truth. I am simply, respectfully adding more to what you already know.

By the way, your knowledge of this issue is far more advanced than most of the people I have had conversations with so, again, much respect!

I don't actually differ with you too much on most points, just the one point of Wahhabis/Salafis not being Muslim. They definitely are a break from centuries of our normative Orthodox juristic tradition which has been amplified by the amount of money they have at their disposal - otherwise, they wouldn't have gotten much more past the Najd area. My brother worked in Saudi and though not all of the people are like this (there are tons of Sufis living here and there - I met the great Shafi'i scholar and Sufi, Habib Zain bin Sumaith [ra]), he met (and argued with) some people who were indeed convinced that you could kill a non-Muslim without any liability - seriously dangerous people.

And I do like that Trump is talking about radicalized/extremist Islam & Muslims as the problem.

It's been said by many already but Islam and Western civilization, Muslims and white Europeans are fundamentally incompatible and no amount of well wishing or speech codes and other punitive measures by Western governments against their own native white majorities to placate Muslims will change this iron law. With few exceptions they don't belong here and constitute a fifth column waiting to strike as their numbers and political power increases. This process is already well underway in London and other European capitals.

At minimum there should be a permanent ban on all immigration and a permanent ban on Muslim refugees while repatriating most of the ones already here. Any jihadists or would be jihadists in our midst should be executed immediately and their families deported. The hearts and mind approach does not work with Islamists (or most Muslims for that matter) and he/she will never embrace secular tenets of nihilism, liberal democracy, consumerism and metrosexuality.

The same sorts who call us “deplorable,” for wanting neighborhoods that are safe, recognizably American, maybe even a tad monocultural.

Yeah, funny how all white neighborhoods and towns, free of any racial diversity are joyous places to live. And you never have to worry about bombs going off or Jamal, Tyrone or even a Mohammad from lashing out with guns or knives, or dusky, shiftless men milling around business districts sexually assaulting white women.

Of course now that Wahhabism has been around a long time, it's difficult to claim it is not part of Islam even if at its core it is fundamentally at odds with "true" Islam (which actually is a peaceful religion). Just like it is hard to argue that followers of the Scofield Reference Bible and their anti-Christian theology is not Christian, since they claim to be. I guess it's a question of nomenclature, I could believe anything and claim I am a Muslim and if I get enough followers I suppose I would be. The danger therefor is in "lumping" all people who call themselves Muslim together. That's why, to his credit, Trump uses the term "radical Islam", though really he should be using the term "Salafists" or "Wahhabists".

To their credit, many of their scholars have come out against terrorism:“Saudi Arabia’s top clerical council, the only body in the country authorised to issue fatwas or Islamic legal opinions, declared on Wednesday that “terrorism is a heinous crime” under Sharia, and perpetrators should be made an example of.”

I think this fatwa is about the fact that the monarchy is opposed to radicals committing terrorism inside Saudi Arabia and threatening their own rule. It is not a general fatwa against Wahhabism, which, indeed, is their state religion. If you understand Wahhabism you know that killing Shi'as, orthodox Sunnis, Christians, Jews, pagans, etc. is notterrorism, it is jihad (which, according to Wahhabiam, is religious duty), and hence the fatwa does not apply.

Now if you find a fatwa from the leading Saudi clerics (not the State-paid ones used to defang Wahhabism for "Western" audiences, but the ones that carry real influence) that says to accept and live in peace with Shi'a, orthodox Sunnis, Christians, etc. (again, not in some made-for-export writing but in sermons in their mosques), I could be convinced that they are reversing their direction.

I have seen documentaries of what they teach in their madrassas. They interview the children. It's all about killing apostates (i.e., anyone not also an (extremist) Wahhabi).

The problem is, because their interpretation has constantly called for letting people derive rulings from the source texts without proper training, they have undercut their own legitimacy and many of the followers of their interpretation simply discard their fatwas.

I respectfully completely with your insinuation that Takfiris are some aberration from Wahhabism. That's what they are at their core. They believe their is "one right" interpretation Islam (which actually is 100% wrong), and any Muslim who rejects their interepration is an apostate who deserves death. As I wrote earlier, it is a totalitarian death cult.

Bro, you just referenced a Sunni website run by the Naqshbandi Sufi order. I am also a Sunni and belong to that same exact order (only diverging at Hazrat Mirza Mazhar Janejana [ra] of Delhi). I agree with what they are saying; Wahhabi Islam is not normative Orthodox Sunni Islam. But nothing in there states that they are not Muslim – only heterodox. One of the hallmarks of Sunni Islam is its willingness to accept other heterodoxies as Muslims even when they won’t accept us as Muslim. Even Al-Azhar, has not declared them non-Muslim even though it has stated they are deviant, extremist and sinful.

As far as Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (ra), he was a very learned scholar and he had his imperfections – and he was indeed jailed for his heterodox positions and spreading of beliefs (anthropomorphism and such). Yet he is still an authority within the existing Hanbali school (though not his unsound positions). And my own teachers, Sunni Orthodox Hanafi scholars (and Sufis to boot) have mentioned him repeatedly in good terms (while discarding the incorrect and false doctrines he had – who is perfect?). This is another staple of the Sunni Orthodox – to incorporate the good where we can; for instance, one of the best books of Qur’anic exegesis is by Imam Zamakhshari (ra) – a known Mutazilite (Rationalist) – yet his work on the linguistics of the Qur’an is a staple of almost every foundational curriculum.

It gets complicated – it is not black and white.

The fatwas from the Saudis are both for inside and outside their realm:
“Although senior Wahhabi preachers endorse execution by beheading for offences that include apostasy, adultery and sorcery, oppose women driving or working and describe Shiites as heretics, they differ from Al-Qaeda and ISIS militants in opposing violent revolt.”

But, as i mentioned, they are simply denounced as “scholars for dollars” by the extremists.

Indeed the extremists are, at their core Wahabbi/Salafi, not all W/S are like them. I have met and talked with many Muslims from their background, there are certain mosques which are known to be more inundated with them as opposed to others. Some of them are very sincere and civilized individuals; they will insist you are wrong, but they do so in a very brotherly and kind way. And there are others who are simply brutish – these are the ones that are at risk for going rogue and extreme.

Again, it is not that black and white, but I applaud your efforts into digging into this complex issue and trying to seek out the truth. I am simply, respectfully adding more to what you already know.

Even Al-Azhar, has not declared them non-Muslim even though it has stated they are deviant, extremist and sinful.

Please see this article: "Saudi clerics have reacted angrily to recent remarks by Egyptian Grand Imam of al-Azhar, Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, who excluded Salafists from Sunnis during a religious conference in Chechnya, Russia" (this is the conference I linked in a previous posting). Do you think that article is inaccurate? There is also this.

I find the rest of you comment very interesting. I think we are approaching this issue from two different perspectives - you are approaching it from a theological perspective and me from a political. My point is that rulers always use and pervert the dominant ideology, whatever it may be, to accomplish their objectives, whatever they may be. They do this to exploit human nature / psychological processes. It is not only true of religion but also of secular humanism (note how the concept of "democracy" is used to destroy civilizations) or Marxism (Great Leap Forward, etc.). Basically every ideology that strives for peace and harmony is usurped by rulers to accomplish its opposite.

So you can say that the US bombing and destruction of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. is "democratic", but I think if you are objective, you understand it is "imperialistic" and quite anti-democratic. And the same holds true of the Wahhabist exploitation of Islam - it digs into the core belief system of the subject population (Muslims) to turn them into engines of the rulers' imperial agenda. And since it turns its object on its head, it is, in fact, the anti-object. In other words, Wahhabism is the anti-Islam, and I would argue (but not here and now :)), that it's ultimate goal is to discredit and destroy Islam (to usher in the satanic One World Religion).

It gets complicated – it is not black and white.

Takfiris are anti-Islamic, anti-human, anti-God, anti-justice, anti-peace, anti-goodness, in short, pure evil: I am going to state this in black and white, I don't mean to offend but it is completely black and white to me :), even if some of their beliefs have an arguable basis in something that is Islamic, human, just and peaceful.

The fatwas from the Saudis are both for inside and outside their realm:

The fact is ISIS is the Saudis. But of course, there is a fundamental contradiction between the House of Saud and their Wahhabist cult: there is no room for the materialistic, consumerist, jet-setting, alcohol-drinking, prostitute-using, drug-addicted, corrupt Saudi monarchy in Wahhabism, and hence, the House of Saud's own ideology dictates their own destruction. This is why they oppose at home, those whom they arm, fund and encourage abroad.

Of course now that Wahhabism has been around a long time, it's difficult to claim it is not part of Islam even if at its core it is fundamentally at odds with "true" Islam (which actually is a peaceful religion). Just like it is hard to argue that followers of the Scofield Reference Bible and their anti-Christian theology is not Christian, since they claim to be. I guess it's a question of nomenclature, I could believe anything and claim I am a Muslim and if I get enough followers I suppose I would be. The danger therefor is in "lumping" all people who call themselves Muslim together. That's why, to his credit, Trump uses the term "radical Islam", though really he should be using the term "Salafists" or "Wahhabists".

To their credit, many of their scholars have come out against terrorism:“Saudi Arabia’s top clerical council, the only body in the country authorised to issue fatwas or Islamic legal opinions, declared on Wednesday that “terrorism is a heinous crime” under Sharia, and perpetrators should be made an example of.”

I think this fatwa is about the fact that the monarchy is opposed to radicals committing terrorism inside Saudi Arabia and threatening their own rule. It is not a general fatwa against Wahhabism, which, indeed, is their state religion. If you understand Wahhabism you know that killing Shi'as, orthodox Sunnis, Christians, Jews, pagans, etc. is notterrorism, it is jihad (which, according to Wahhabiam, is religious duty), and hence the fatwa does not apply.

Now if you find a fatwa from the leading Saudi clerics (not the State-paid ones used to defang Wahhabism for "Western" audiences, but the ones that carry real influence) that says to accept and live in peace with Shi'a, orthodox Sunnis, Christians, etc. (again, not in some made-for-export writing but in sermons in their mosques), I could be convinced that they are reversing their direction.

I have seen documentaries of what they teach in their madrassas. They interview the children. It's all about killing apostates (i.e., anyone not also an (extremist) Wahhabi).

The problem is, because their interpretation has constantly called for letting people derive rulings from the source texts without proper training, they have undercut their own legitimacy and many of the followers of their interpretation simply discard their fatwas.

I respectfully completely with your insinuation that Takfiris are some aberration from Wahhabism. That's what they are at their core. They believe their is "one right" interpretation Islam (which actually is 100% wrong), and any Muslim who rejects their interepration is an apostate who deserves death. As I wrote earlier, it is a totalitarian death cult.

By the way, your knowledge of this issue is far more advanced than most of the people I have had conversations with so, again, much respect!

I don’t actually differ with you too much on most points, just the one point of Wahhabis/Salafis not being Muslim. They definitely are a break from centuries of our normative Orthodox juristic tradition which has been amplified by the amount of money they have at their disposal – otherwise, they wouldn’t have gotten much more past the Najd area. My brother worked in Saudi and though not all of the people are like this (there are tons of Sufis living here and there – I met the great Shafi’i scholar and Sufi, Habib Zain bin Sumaith [ra]), he met (and argued with) some people who were indeed convinced that you could kill a non-Muslim without any liability – seriously dangerous people.

And I do like that Trump is talking about radicalized/extremist Islam & Muslims as the problem.

Christian Middle East has been completely ethnically cleansed of indigenous peoples. There were no Muslims in Middle East.

Unlike Jews, who are a tribe (Judaism is a group of religions), Muslims are adherents of a faith, Islam. It is true that many Christians converted to Islam, either peacefully or by force, but I am missing the ethnic cleansing. The same ethnic groups (Arabs) that lived in the ME before continue to live there.

You might make the argument that conversion is "ethnic cleansing". If that is the case, you might look at the "Christian West", there are hardly any Christians left at all. Sure, there are many who call themselves "Christian", but to a Christian of 1000 years ago, they would call them infidels/heathens. So in fact the "secular humanist" Communism that is prevalent in the West has done a far better job of "ideological" ethnic cleansing than Islam ever did.

Unfortunately for the Native American victims of European Christians, even those that converted to Christianity were, in the end, slaughtered or forced into concentration camps.

Do you know who were the original Egyptians, for example? Coptics, who have been reduced to a barely surviving minority in their own lands by Muslim Arab invaders.

Actually an estimated 10-14 million Coptics continue to live in Egypt, at least before the "Muslim Brotherhood" (which is a politicized Islam controlled by the "West") took power. I note also that Saddam Hussein, Mohammar Qaddafi and Bashar al-Assad all protect(ed) Christians, and it is the "Christian West", as you fancy it, who has removed them from power to facilitate the expulsion of the remaining Christians by radical Wahhabists indoctrinated by the "West" and its Saudi BFF (see my comment above).

Muslim Turk invaders were stopped at the Gates of Vienna: otherwise Europe too would have ethnically cleansed or forcibly Islamized.

So you claim .... But then historical knowledge is not your strong point.

Spainiards were able to resist the attempt to ethnically cleanse or Islamize them by Muslim Arab invaders. After centuries of the Arab Muslim yoke, Christian Spaniards cleansed their body of the infestation. Thank God.

The fact is Spain was a caliphate, in part, for over 7 centuries. Christians, Jews and Muslims lived together peacefully. Your claims are utter lies.

In fact this was the time of the "pinnacle" of Muslim sciences and philosophy, while Eruope was still stuck in the Dark Ages.

By the way, what do you think happened to non-Catholics in Europe during this period? The Muslims were actually quite more tolerant than their Catholic counterparts.

Europeans did not come to North America to commit genocide.There were atrocities and massacres: no doubt.But there was no genocide.About 80% of Natives died as a result of infections they were inadvertently exposed to, brought by Europeans (…who were immune).

Europeans came to conquer, whether or not they intended to kill all the natives or not is not easily answered, I am sure many did and many did not, but I don't know how to get a reliable poll. I always think the best way to judge is to look at facts rather than what you speculate people might have intended or thought. The facts are Native Ameericans in North America north of the Rio Grande (i.e., north of Mexico today) were reduced from 10 million to just 250,000, which remnants were place din concentration camps which, at the time, wree thought to be the least valuable available land. If that's not genocide, I don't know what is.

Prove to me that all Muslims wanted to exterminate Christians when they came to Spain .... lol

For more on my thoughts on this, and why you are utterly wrong (including with the dieases argument), see my post here.

Yeah well there is dispute over that as well. But unlike you I am not a shameless denier, despite the fact that the evidence of Native American genocide is 1,000 times stronger and in fact undeniable for all but the most motivated racist.

I just did, Effendi IslamoFascist anti-Christian troll.

I'm not Muslim or a fascit, you ignorant Christian-fascist Islamophobic genocide apologist.

You are spouting outright lies. You claim the case for the alleged genocide of native Americans is 1000 times stronger than mass murders and mini-genocides committed by Muslims I presume and you are wrong. And they didn’t all die at the hands of the evil white man.

Although estimates vary widely, the most plausible estimates I’ve seen are around 2.5 million so called native Americans (ever heard of Kennewick man?) here at the time European settlers began arriving with the landing of the Mayflower. Through disease, starvation, and warfare with the white man and other Indians they were reduced to around 800K. Today there are 5.4 million native Americans living in the U.S on sovereign territory ceded to them by the “genocidal” U.S government. Not bad for being victims of an alleged genocide.

Some Indian tribes were capable of shocking levels of brutality against both European settlers and rival Indian tribes, but go ahead and cling to the fiction that they were highly spiritual, civilized and non-violent people undeserving of the fate which befell them.

The 10 million figure you are using for Indians living North of the Rio Grande is highly inflated. But even if they were reduced to 250K (that number is way too low) the fact that they’ve grown to 5.4 million means they’ve increased more than 20 times in less than 150 years. What group of non-Muslims living under Muslim rule has experienced that kind of population growth?

Although estimates vary widely, the most plausible estimates I’ve seen are around 2.5 million so called native Americans (ever heard of Kennewick man?) here at the time European settlers began arriving with the landing of the Mayflower.

So you believe the lowest estimate, fine, I don't. Ten million north of the Rio Grande is actually a consensus estimate, others put the number far higher, at 18 million (Dobyns). You think the 4 million alleged Armenian dead is accurate, or the 6 million dead in the holohoax? These are all estimates. And Kennewock man has nothing whatsoever to do with the Native American population in 1492.

Through disease, starvation, and warfare with the white man and other Indians they were reduced to around 800K.

The 1900 census put their population in the US (including reservations) at 250,000.

Today there are 5.4 million native Americans living in the U.S on sovereign territory ceded to them by the “genocidal” U.S government. Not bad for being victims of an alleged genocide.

There are also lots of Armenians and Jews running around. I would note, of those 5.4 million, there are a large number of Elizabeth Warrens. 2.9 million identify as not "mixed". So the population has increased, this has no bearing whatsoever of whether or not a genocide happened. Reduction of population form 2.1 million (if I were to take this number, which I don't believe to be accurate at all) to 250,000 is still 90% killed, but on top of that, their culture and way of life was destroyed and they were placed in concentration camps.

Maybe if Mexicans invaded the US and killed off 90% of Whites (really more like 98% as the population was around 10M), perhaps most of them with a disease or two, in the US and placed the surviving Whites in concentration camps, it would seem more like genocide to you, eh?

As to inter-Native wars, those had occurred for centuries and is not a cause of their stark reduction in numbers. It probably served mainly to keep the population sustainable.

I do agree that disease made the task of genocide easier. Aside form biological warfare, the fact is that Manifest Destiny and the Europeans' view of Natives as "savages" (much like you view, say, Muslims) guaranteed the outcome in any event - it simply would have cost more bullets had the viruses not struck first.

Moreover, many tribes were entirely eliminated, and thus the term genocide properly applies to those tribes.

Some Indian tribes were capable of shocking levels of brutality against both European settlers and rival Indian tribes, but go ahead and cling to the fiction that they were highly spiritual, civilized and non-violent people undeserving of the fate which befell them.

Some were brutal in the defense of their lands, I have no doubt. As brutal as, what, the British and their firebombings of Germany, when Britain was never even invaded? Probably not that brutal. Or the Spaniards' brutality to native populations in Central America, who greeted their ships with dance and feasts but were soon turned into mining slaves with a very short life expectancy due to their intolerable slave conditions?

Also, there were many different tribes with different attributes. The Hopi, for example, were very peaceful, not that it helped their cause one bit.

What group of non-Muslims living under Muslim rule has experienced that kind of population growth?

You are comparing apples and oranges. Native Americans have increased in number but none of them lives their life the way they did before the Europeans came and destroyed their cultures (save for some Aleutians). If you look at Muslims, they encompass all kinds of races and cultures, and AFAIK they have all increased in population, from Arabs and Africans to Indonesians and Indians (Pakistanis). Sure they don't have their prior pagan beliefs, but neither do the tribes of Europe, do they, after Christianity destroyed their pagan belief systems? (Though Scotland boasts some druids again, lol.)

Bro, you just referenced a Sunni website run by the Naqshbandi Sufi order. I am also a Sunni and belong to that same exact order (only diverging at Hazrat Mirza Mazhar Janejana [ra] of Delhi). I agree with what they are saying; Wahhabi Islam is not normative Orthodox Sunni Islam. But nothing in there states that they are not Muslim - only heterodox. One of the hallmarks of Sunni Islam is its willingness to accept other heterodoxies as Muslims even when they won't accept us as Muslim. Even Al-Azhar, has not declared them non-Muslim even though it has stated they are deviant, extremist and sinful.

As far as Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (ra), he was a very learned scholar and he had his imperfections - and he was indeed jailed for his heterodox positions and spreading of beliefs (anthropomorphism and such). Yet he is still an authority within the existing Hanbali school (though not his unsound positions). And my own teachers, Sunni Orthodox Hanafi scholars (and Sufis to boot) have mentioned him repeatedly in good terms (while discarding the incorrect and false doctrines he had - who is perfect?). This is another staple of the Sunni Orthodox - to incorporate the good where we can; for instance, one of the best books of Qur'anic exegesis is by Imam Zamakhshari (ra) - a known Mutazilite (Rationalist) - yet his work on the linguistics of the Qur'an is a staple of almost every foundational curriculum.

It gets complicated - it is not black and white.

The fatwas from the Saudis are both for inside and outside their realm:
"Although senior Wahhabi preachers endorse execution by beheading for offences that include apostasy, adultery and sorcery, oppose women driving or working and describe Shiites as heretics, they differ from Al-Qaeda and ISIS militants in opposing violent revolt."
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Aug-19/267697-saudi-top-preacher-blasts-isis-as-enemy-no1.ashx#axzz3ERkkrm1u

But, as i mentioned, they are simply denounced as "scholars for dollars" by the extremists.

Indeed the extremists are, at their core Wahabbi/Salafi, not all W/S are like them. I have met and talked with many Muslims from their background, there are certain mosques which are known to be more inundated with them as opposed to others. Some of them are very sincere and civilized individuals; they will insist you are wrong, but they do so in a very brotherly and kind way. And there are others who are simply brutish - these are the ones that are at risk for going rogue and extreme.

Again, it is not that black and white, but I applaud your efforts into digging into this complex issue and trying to seek out the truth. I am simply, respectfully adding more to what you already know.

Peace.

Greets Talha,

Even Al-Azhar, has not declared them non-Muslim even though it has stated they are deviant, extremist and sinful.

Please see this article: “Saudi clerics have reacted angrily to recent remarks by Egyptian Grand Imam of al-Azhar, Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, who excluded Salafists from Sunnis during a religious conference in Chechnya, Russia” (this is the conference I linked in a previous posting). Do you think that article is inaccurate? There is also this.

I find the rest of you comment very interesting. I think we are approaching this issue from two different perspectives – you are approaching it from a theological perspective and me from a political. My point is that rulers always use and pervert the dominant ideology, whatever it may be, to accomplish their objectives, whatever they may be. They do this to exploit human nature / psychological processes. It is not only true of religion but also of secular humanism (note how the concept of “democracy” is used to destroy civilizations) or Marxism (Great Leap Forward, etc.). Basically every ideology that strives for peace and harmony is usurped by rulers to accomplish its opposite.

So you can say that the US bombing and destruction of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. is “democratic”, but I think if you are objective, you understand it is “imperialistic” and quite anti-democratic. And the same holds true of the Wahhabist exploitation of Islam – it digs into the core belief system of the subject population (Muslims) to turn them into engines of the rulers’ imperial agenda. And since it turns its object on its head, it is, in fact, the anti-object. In other words, Wahhabism is the anti-Islam, and I would argue (but not here and now :)), that it’s ultimate goal is to discredit and destroy Islam (to usher in the satanic One World Religion).

It gets complicated – it is not black and white.

Takfiris are anti-Islamic, anti-human, anti-God, anti-justice, anti-peace, anti-goodness, in short, pure evil: I am going to state this in black and white, I don’t mean to offend but it is completely black and white to me :), even if some of their beliefs have an arguable basis in something that is Islamic, human, just and peaceful.

The fatwas from the Saudis are both for inside and outside their realm:

The fact is ISIS is the Saudis. But of course, there is a fundamental contradiction between the House of Saud and their Wahhabist cult: there is no room for the materialistic, consumerist, jet-setting, alcohol-drinking, prostitute-using, drug-addicted, corrupt Saudi monarchy in Wahhabism, and hence, the House of Saud’s own ideology dictates their own destruction. This is why they oppose at home, those whom they arm, fund and encourage abroad.

I've read a derivative of that article before. I completely agree with it; Wahabbis are not Sunni Orthodox...but they are Muslims - do you see the difference? Just as I can say Shiah and Ibadi are not Sunni Orthodox...but they are Muslim. Sunnis are the super-majority and have been for centuries (there is no parallel in Christianity) and we have self-defining terms:"All Muslims are guided by the Sunnah, but Sunnis stress it, as well as consensus (ijma; the full name of Sunnis is Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Ijma, people of the Sunnah and consensus). "http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e2280

The Wahhabis have broken with consensus on too many issues with the Sunni majority, thus their claims to be part of the Sunnis is lacking. Even so, they are our brothers.

you are approaching it from a theological perspective

Quite so, whether someone is Muslim or not is essentially a theological question - irrespective of the political implications. Declaring one group to be non-Muslim is something I am quite unqualified to do and has profound metaphysical ramifications in the next life if one is wrong.

Takfiris are ... in short, pure evil

Again, not all Wahhabi/Salafis are takfiris. But even with takfiris...if they were pure evil, they would not be able to be swayed away from this ideology, but some can be - they are very misguided. And some are a lost cause. My own teachers, here and in Pakistan, have had success in turning people around and guiding them back to normal, traditional understanding. It takes patience and wisdom, but the Sufis have been doing this for ages. Though I will readily admit, there can also be extremists among the Sufis and violent ones at that. Is it common? No - but they do exist in smaller numbers.

Keep in mind, that this trend first showed its face very, very early on; in the form of Khawarij/Kharijis (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Kharijite) who were uncompromising fanatics who called well-known Companions like the third caliph, Ali (ra), as apostates. They called for his death and eventually assassinated him, but look at how he dictated how we must view them:"The majority [Sunni Orthodox] view takes its cue from 'Ali (ra), who was asked: Are the Khawarij polytheists? He said: 'They flee from polytheism.' Are they hypocrites? He said: 'The hypocrites remember Allah only a little.' Then what are they? He said: 'They are our brothers who transgressed against us (ikhwanuna baghaw 'alayna), so we fought them for their transgression.'" (http://muslimmatters.org/2015/08/24/khawarij-ideology-isis-savagery-part-one/)

Clear cut and simple - if they would lay down their arms and disperse, then whatever is in their hearts is between them and God. Otherwise there are numerous fatwas from top level scholars and institutions calling for the obligation on fighting them - but I have yet to see a fatwa from the same scholars or institutions on fighting Wahabbis in toto.

the House of Saud’s own ideology dictates their own destruction

This is spot on - this is the Achille's heel of the Saudi-Wahabbi alliance. At its core, the uncompromising Khariji nature of the ideology demands purity - it is at its core a political interpretation than a theological one. They have let loose the dogs and the dogs can turn on them at any time - it is a precarious position to be in.

Especially on that last point - you know your stuff!

I think this video from Ustadh Nouman Khan, head of the Bayyinah Institute, hits on the head what is going on especially since the younger generation that has been cut off from its traditional roots and is ready for manipulation and how to combat it:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VitJM_6E74

You are spouting outright lies. You claim the case for the alleged genocide of native Americans is 1000 times stronger than mass murders and mini-genocides committed by Muslims I presume and you are wrong. And they didn't all die at the hands of the evil white man.

Although estimates vary widely, the most plausible estimates I've seen are around 2.5 million so called native Americans (ever heard of Kennewick man?) here at the time European settlers began arriving with the landing of the Mayflower. Through disease, starvation, and warfare with the white man and other Indians they were reduced to around 800K. Today there are 5.4 million native Americans living in the U.S on sovereign territory ceded to them by the "genocidal" U.S government. Not bad for being victims of an alleged genocide.

Some Indian tribes were capable of shocking levels of brutality against both European settlers and rival Indian tribes, but go ahead and cling to the fiction that they were highly spiritual, civilized and non-violent people undeserving of the fate which befell them.

The 10 million figure you are using for Indians living North of the Rio Grande is highly inflated. But even if they were reduced to 250K (that number is way too low) the fact that they've grown to 5.4 million means they've increased more than 20 times in less than 150 years. What group of non-Muslims living under Muslim rule has experienced that kind of population growth?

Although estimates vary widely, the most plausible estimates I’ve seen are around 2.5 million so called native Americans (ever heard of Kennewick man?) here at the time European settlers began arriving with the landing of the Mayflower.

So you believe the lowest estimate, fine, I don’t. Ten million north of the Rio Grande is actually a consensus estimate, others put the number far higher, at 18 million (Dobyns). You think the 4 million alleged Armenian dead is accurate, or the 6 million dead in the holohoax? These are all estimates. And Kennewock man has nothing whatsoever to do with the Native American population in 1492.

Through disease, starvation, and warfare with the white man and other Indians they were reduced to around 800K.

The 1900 census put their population in the US (including reservations) at 250,000.

Today there are 5.4 million native Americans living in the U.S on sovereign territory ceded to them by the “genocidal” U.S government. Not bad for being victims of an alleged genocide.

There are also lots of Armenians and Jews running around. I would note, of those 5.4 million, there are a large number of Elizabeth Warrens. 2.9 million identify as not “mixed”. So the population has increased, this has no bearing whatsoever of whether or not a genocide happened. Reduction of population form 2.1 million (if I were to take this number, which I don’t believe to be accurate at all) to 250,000 is still 90% killed, but on top of that, their culture and way of life was destroyed and they were placed in concentration camps.

Maybe if Mexicans invaded the US and killed off 90% of Whites (really more like 98% as the population was around 10M), perhaps most of them with a disease or two, in the US and placed the surviving Whites in concentration camps, it would seem more like genocide to you, eh?

As to inter-Native wars, those had occurred for centuries and is not a cause of their stark reduction in numbers. It probably served mainly to keep the population sustainable.

I do agree that disease made the task of genocide easier. Aside form biological warfare, the fact is that Manifest Destiny and the Europeans’ view of Natives as “savages” (much like you view, say, Muslims) guaranteed the outcome in any event – it simply would have cost more bullets had the viruses not struck first.

Moreover, many tribes were entirely eliminated, and thus the term genocide properly applies to those tribes.

Some Indian tribes were capable of shocking levels of brutality against both European settlers and rival Indian tribes, but go ahead and cling to the fiction that they were highly spiritual, civilized and non-violent people undeserving of the fate which befell them.

Some were brutal in the defense of their lands, I have no doubt. As brutal as, what, the British and their firebombings of Germany, when Britain was never even invaded? Probably not that brutal. Or the Spaniards’ brutality to native populations in Central America, who greeted their ships with dance and feasts but were soon turned into mining slaves with a very short life expectancy due to their intolerable slave conditions?

Also, there were many different tribes with different attributes. The Hopi, for example, were very peaceful, not that it helped their cause one bit.

What group of non-Muslims living under Muslim rule has experienced that kind of population growth?

You are comparing apples and oranges. Native Americans have increased in number but none of them lives their life the way they did before the Europeans came and destroyed their cultures (save for some Aleutians). If you look at Muslims, they encompass all kinds of races and cultures, and AFAIK they have all increased in population, from Arabs and Africans to Indonesians and Indians (Pakistanis). Sure they don’t have their prior pagan beliefs, but neither do the tribes of Europe, do they, after Christianity destroyed their pagan belief systems? (Though Scotland boasts some druids again, lol.)

So you believe the lowest estimate, fine, I don’t. Ten million north of the Rio Grande is actually a consensus estimate, others put the number far higher, at 18 million

Well, I haven't read this thread, but happened to notice this particular comment. And I'm *extremely* skeptical about such huge alleged numbers of Amerinds.

I'll admit that aside from reading Mann's 1491 book, I'm totally ignorant of the topic, but decades ago when I was in school, the estimated Amerind total was more like 1-2M, which seems much more plausible to me. Perhaps I'm writing from total ignorance, but here are a few questions:

(1) There weren't any Amerind cities. How can you have a population of 10-18M without any cities? By contrast, everyone knows that the Incas and Aztecs had gigantic cities and huge populations.

(2) As far as I know, the Northern Amerinds were mostly hunter-gatherer tribes or fairly primitive agriculturalists, so their population density was extremely low. How in the world can you have so many millions of them supported by such a primitive economic system?

(3) Once the various Europeans arrived, there were lots of wars and massacres, but wasn't the number of fatalities rather tiny, maybe totalling some tens of thousands over a couple of hundred years of fighting?

(4) The Cherokee and the other "civilized tribes" were probably the most advanced of all the Amerinds, but according to Wikipedia, the famous "Trail of Tears" involving their total explusion including only 16,000 of them. Doesn't that provide a sense of how utterly tiny the number of Amerinds ever was?

Maybe I'm totally mistaken, but as of now I'd assume that the notion that there were 10-20M Amerind hunter-gatherers living in North America is just some sort of crazy hoax, just like so many other hoaxes in our corrupted academic world.

So you believe the lowest estimate, fine, I don’t. Ten million north of the Rio Grande is actually a consensus estimate, others put the number far higher, at 18 million (Dobyns). These are all estimates. And Kennewock man has nothing whatsoever to do with the Native American population in 1492.

10 million is not a consensus estimate and according to some data I was able to quickly pull up "researchers" put the estimate north of the Rio Grande at 4 million to 12 million. But again others put the number at 2-3 million max which seems logical given the stone age level of the Indians. Kennewick man is relevant given that he's likely of European origin and carbon dating means he and his people were here at least 9000 years ago at the same time as "native" Americans. Recent DNA results purportedly prove his native American ancestry but scientists who strongly disagree based on previous analysis won't be given access to his remains.

You think the 4 million alleged Armenian dead is accurate, or the 6 million dead in the holohoax?

No I don't. 1.5 million murdered Armenians is the accepted figure and to my knowledge even Armenians aren't disputing that. No more than one million Jews died in German held territory and it was far from systematic.

The 1900 census put their population in the US (including reservations) at 250,000.

This is far from scientific as the census did not count "Indians not taxed" living in sparsely settled areas of the U.S. And some Indians living among the general population did not admit to Indian ancestry on the census to avoid discrimination. Further, I doubt filling out a census form was high on an Indian's list of things to do, so on a circumstantial basis 250K is artificially low.

There are also lots of Armenians and Jews running around. I would note, of those 5.4 million, there are a large number of Elizabeth Warrens. 2.9 million identify as not “mixed”. So the population has increased, this has no bearing whatsoever of whether or not a genocide happened.

Sure, but have Armenians and Jews increased 1200% like the American Indian? Not even close. Using your figures, 250K Indians in 1900 grew to 2.9 million (this assumes the other 2.5 million are Lizzy Warren types and wannabes) which is an increase of 1200% in 116 years which is staggering.

.....but on top of that, their culture and way of life was destroyed and they were placed in concentration camps.

True, their culture and way of life were destroyed but concentration camps were simply holding centers, not death camps as you're insinuating, and first generation Japanese, Italians and Germans were also herded into them during WWII. Do you think Indians want to give up TV, supermarkets and living indoors to live in tepees, hunt buffalo, sometimes die of starvation and disease (irrespective of the evil white man) torture other Indians and dance around the campfire?

Maybe if Mexicans invaded the US and killed off 90% of Whites (really more like 98% as the population was around 10M), perhaps most of them with a disease or two, in the US and placed the surviving Whites in concentration camps, it would seem more like genocide to you, eh?

You keep using genocide pretty loosely. If it was largely by disease then no, it wouldn't be genocide unless the Mestizos were deliberately trying to infect and kill us with their exotic diseases. Russia lost upwards to 20 million military and civilian personnel in WWII yet nobody calls that genocide because it technically isn't. That's because it was in the context of a war and the deaths resulted from pitched battle with the Germans and disease and starvation that results from disruptions in food supply and medicine. Similarly, there came a point when European settlers and later the U.S. government waged war upon the Indian tribes but after the cessation of hostilities their population vastly increased as noted above. Context is key.

As to inter-Native wars, those had occurred for centuries and is not a cause of their stark reduction in numbers. It probably served mainly to keep the population sustainable.

Oh, all for a good cause. Otherwise, you don't know that inter-tribal warfare didn't account in a stark reduction in numbers and since you want to pin a genocide on whitey that's your story and your sticking to it.

.....the Europeans’ view of Natives as “savages” (much like you view, say, Muslims)

I never said all Muslims are savages, but those in our nations committing acts of violence have certainly earned that label. Are the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs in the U.K. not savages in your view? I'll bet if whites were doing it to Muslims you'd have a stronger opinion.

Some were brutal in the defense of their lands, I have no doubt.

When they attacked other Indian tribes and murdered them, stole their property, killed their children and carried off their women was that "in defense of their lands"? But if brutality in defense of one's land is ok then the Europeans are within their rights to resort to shocking levels of violence and brutality against the Muslim interlopers, right?

You are comparing apples and oranges. Native Americans have increased in number but none of them lives their life the way they did before the Europeans came and destroyed their cultures (save for some Aleutians).

Apples and apples. Again, we're a free country and there's nothing stopping them from recreating their wondrous culture and religion so long as they don't scalp anyone or try to carry off women and property of U.S citizens. But something tells me few would elect to live in tepees and hunt buffalo. They would be on a very short leash living under Muslim rule if they weren't all killed off or converted to Islam.

If you look at Muslims, they encompass all kinds of races and cultures, and AFAIK they have all increased in population, from Arabs and Africans to Indonesians and Indians (Pakistanis). Sure they don’t have their prior pagan beliefs, but neither do the tribes of Europe, do they, after Christianity destroyed their pagan belief systems? (Though Scotland boasts some druids again, lol.)

I think you missed the point. First, concerning pagan Europe, most willingly converted when they were militarily more powerful than Christianity. The Germanic Goths could have utterly destroyed Christian Rome and eradicated Christianity from Europe yet they didn't and submitted to Christ when nobody forced them to. Ironically, it was the newly converted barbarians who, with great zeal, sometimes forcibly converted fellow pagan Europeans such as when Charlemagne beheaded 3000 peaceful Anglo-Saxons for refusing to convert. But the practice was not widespread.

By contrast, Egypt used to be 90% Christian and is now 10% Christian and 90% Muslim. Afghanistan used to be Buddhist but is now entirely Muslim. Buddhists did not see a 1200% increase in population following the Muslim conquest and neither did Middle Eastern Christians who are now on the verge of extinction.

All kinds of quirky religions are sprouting up in the Western world including paganism. This type of trend wouldn't be taken lightly in Muslim ruled nations.

Although estimates vary widely, the most plausible estimates I’ve seen are around 2.5 million so called native Americans (ever heard of Kennewick man?) here at the time European settlers began arriving with the landing of the Mayflower.

So you believe the lowest estimate, fine, I don't. Ten million north of the Rio Grande is actually a consensus estimate, others put the number far higher, at 18 million (Dobyns). You think the 4 million alleged Armenian dead is accurate, or the 6 million dead in the holohoax? These are all estimates. And Kennewock man has nothing whatsoever to do with the Native American population in 1492.

Through disease, starvation, and warfare with the white man and other Indians they were reduced to around 800K.

The 1900 census put their population in the US (including reservations) at 250,000.

Today there are 5.4 million native Americans living in the U.S on sovereign territory ceded to them by the “genocidal” U.S government. Not bad for being victims of an alleged genocide.

There are also lots of Armenians and Jews running around. I would note, of those 5.4 million, there are a large number of Elizabeth Warrens. 2.9 million identify as not "mixed". So the population has increased, this has no bearing whatsoever of whether or not a genocide happened. Reduction of population form 2.1 million (if I were to take this number, which I don't believe to be accurate at all) to 250,000 is still 90% killed, but on top of that, their culture and way of life was destroyed and they were placed in concentration camps.

Maybe if Mexicans invaded the US and killed off 90% of Whites (really more like 98% as the population was around 10M), perhaps most of them with a disease or two, in the US and placed the surviving Whites in concentration camps, it would seem more like genocide to you, eh?

As to inter-Native wars, those had occurred for centuries and is not a cause of their stark reduction in numbers. It probably served mainly to keep the population sustainable.

I do agree that disease made the task of genocide easier. Aside form biological warfare, the fact is that Manifest Destiny and the Europeans' view of Natives as "savages" (much like you view, say, Muslims) guaranteed the outcome in any event - it simply would have cost more bullets had the viruses not struck first.

Moreover, many tribes were entirely eliminated, and thus the term genocide properly applies to those tribes.

Some Indian tribes were capable of shocking levels of brutality against both European settlers and rival Indian tribes, but go ahead and cling to the fiction that they were highly spiritual, civilized and non-violent people undeserving of the fate which befell them.

Some were brutal in the defense of their lands, I have no doubt. As brutal as, what, the British and their firebombings of Germany, when Britain was never even invaded? Probably not that brutal. Or the Spaniards' brutality to native populations in Central America, who greeted their ships with dance and feasts but were soon turned into mining slaves with a very short life expectancy due to their intolerable slave conditions?

Also, there were many different tribes with different attributes. The Hopi, for example, were very peaceful, not that it helped their cause one bit.

What group of non-Muslims living under Muslim rule has experienced that kind of population growth?

You are comparing apples and oranges. Native Americans have increased in number but none of them lives their life the way they did before the Europeans came and destroyed their cultures (save for some Aleutians). If you look at Muslims, they encompass all kinds of races and cultures, and AFAIK they have all increased in population, from Arabs and Africans to Indonesians and Indians (Pakistanis). Sure they don't have their prior pagan beliefs, but neither do the tribes of Europe, do they, after Christianity destroyed their pagan belief systems? (Though Scotland boasts some druids again, lol.)

Cheers

So you believe the lowest estimate, fine, I don’t. Ten million north of the Rio Grande is actually a consensus estimate, others put the number far higher, at 18 million

Well, I haven’t read this thread, but happened to notice this particular comment. And I’m *extremely* skeptical about such huge alleged numbers of Amerinds.

I’ll admit that aside from reading Mann’s 1491 book, I’m totally ignorant of the topic, but decades ago when I was in school, the estimated Amerind total was more like 1-2M, which seems much more plausible to me. Perhaps I’m writing from total ignorance, but here are a few questions:

(1) There weren’t any Amerind cities. How can you have a population of 10-18M without any cities? By contrast, everyone knows that the Incas and Aztecs had gigantic cities and huge populations.

(2) As far as I know, the Northern Amerinds were mostly hunter-gatherer tribes or fairly primitive agriculturalists, so their population density was extremely low. How in the world can you have so many millions of them supported by such a primitive economic system?

(3) Once the various Europeans arrived, there were lots of wars and massacres, but wasn’t the number of fatalities rather tiny, maybe totalling some tens of thousands over a couple of hundred years of fighting?

(4) The Cherokee and the other “civilized tribes” were probably the most advanced of all the Amerinds, but according to Wikipedia, the famous “Trail of Tears” involving their total explusion including only 16,000 of them. Doesn’t that provide a sense of how utterly tiny the number of Amerinds ever was?

Maybe I’m totally mistaken, but as of now I’d assume that the notion that there were 10-20M Amerind hunter-gatherers living in North America is just some sort of crazy hoax, just like so many other hoaxes in our corrupted academic world.

Hi Ron (assuming you are really Ron Unz, hard to know without a registration system or maybe your handle is reserved? :)).

First, thanks for putting this great site together.

To your points, I think we all grew up with a lot of flag-waving BS about US history. Lots or revelations in the meantime have dispelled many of these myths - the Native American myths are one set of these. For example, Native Americans clearly had large numbers of cities.

While there are many resources available (and, of course, as with any history, it is impossible to prove what is really true™ - indeed, people cannot even agree who attacked a UN convoy in Aleppo a few days ago, and how it was destroyed, despite all the technology available, how is it possible to agree on what happened centuries ago?)

Nonetheless, I offer the following two (random short) reads for your consideration:

Exactly. I believe the highly inflated number of 10-18 million is being used to make the genocide narrative sexier and eye popping and make it appear as if the European settlers were afflicted with a genocidal blood lust unequaled in the history of the world. I believe approximately 1000 Indians died during the "Trail of Tears" which doesn't constitute genocide to any reasonable person.

So you believe the lowest estimate, fine, I don’t. Ten million north of the Rio Grande is actually a consensus estimate, others put the number far higher, at 18 million

Well, I haven't read this thread, but happened to notice this particular comment. And I'm *extremely* skeptical about such huge alleged numbers of Amerinds.

I'll admit that aside from reading Mann's 1491 book, I'm totally ignorant of the topic, but decades ago when I was in school, the estimated Amerind total was more like 1-2M, which seems much more plausible to me. Perhaps I'm writing from total ignorance, but here are a few questions:

(1) There weren't any Amerind cities. How can you have a population of 10-18M without any cities? By contrast, everyone knows that the Incas and Aztecs had gigantic cities and huge populations.

(2) As far as I know, the Northern Amerinds were mostly hunter-gatherer tribes or fairly primitive agriculturalists, so their population density was extremely low. How in the world can you have so many millions of them supported by such a primitive economic system?

(3) Once the various Europeans arrived, there were lots of wars and massacres, but wasn't the number of fatalities rather tiny, maybe totalling some tens of thousands over a couple of hundred years of fighting?

(4) The Cherokee and the other "civilized tribes" were probably the most advanced of all the Amerinds, but according to Wikipedia, the famous "Trail of Tears" involving their total explusion including only 16,000 of them. Doesn't that provide a sense of how utterly tiny the number of Amerinds ever was?

Maybe I'm totally mistaken, but as of now I'd assume that the notion that there were 10-20M Amerind hunter-gatherers living in North America is just some sort of crazy hoax, just like so many other hoaxes in our corrupted academic world.

Hi Ron (assuming you are really Ron Unz, hard to know without a registration system or maybe your handle is reserved? :)).

First, thanks for putting this great site together.

To your points, I think we all grew up with a lot of flag-waving BS about US history. Lots or revelations in the meantime have dispelled many of these myths – the Native American myths are one set of these. For example, Native Americans clearly had large numbers of cities.

While there are many resources available (and, of course, as with any history, it is impossible to prove what is really true™ – indeed, people cannot even agree who attacked a UN convoy in Aleppo a few days ago, and how it was destroyed, despite all the technology available, how is it possible to agree on what happened centuries ago?)

Nonetheless, I offer the following two (random short) reads for your consideration:

Thornton, American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492

Well, I can't say glancing at a few pages of that Thornton book you recommended much changed my mind. He discusses the extreme difficulty of ascertaining the Amerind population, and provides a convenient table with the 20 or so estimates by different anthropologists over the years. Nearly all of them are exactly the 1-2M figure I'd always heard, while Dobyns is an *extreme* outlier, claiming a total of 10-18M. Furthermore, Thornton (p.30) specifically explains why even based on his own methodology, Dobyns's figures are probably wrong by a factor of 2-3x, and maybe a factor of 5-8x.

I'm not an expert, but if almost all the experts say one thing, but one of them says something totally different, the former are more likely to be correct.

Since Northern Amerinds had a very primitive economic system, generally lived in tiny villages, and had no cities, the 1-2M figure seems pretty plausible to me. The vastly larger figure just seems like the sort of ridiculous ideological propaganda that has corrupted scholarship over the last couple of generations.

Anyway, the whole talk of "genocide" is just totally ridiculous. The plausible part of Dobyns's argument---I think generally accepted---is that European diseases reached the Northern Amerinds, wiping out maybe 80-95% of the local population, generations before any Europeans settlers themselves arrived, which is why their population estimates were so low.

So maybe you should be demanding a Nuremberg Genocide Trial for the Smallpox virus...

Although estimates vary widely, the most plausible estimates I’ve seen are around 2.5 million so called native Americans (ever heard of Kennewick man?) here at the time European settlers began arriving with the landing of the Mayflower.

So you believe the lowest estimate, fine, I don't. Ten million north of the Rio Grande is actually a consensus estimate, others put the number far higher, at 18 million (Dobyns). You think the 4 million alleged Armenian dead is accurate, or the 6 million dead in the holohoax? These are all estimates. And Kennewock man has nothing whatsoever to do with the Native American population in 1492.

Through disease, starvation, and warfare with the white man and other Indians they were reduced to around 800K.

The 1900 census put their population in the US (including reservations) at 250,000.

Today there are 5.4 million native Americans living in the U.S on sovereign territory ceded to them by the “genocidal” U.S government. Not bad for being victims of an alleged genocide.

There are also lots of Armenians and Jews running around. I would note, of those 5.4 million, there are a large number of Elizabeth Warrens. 2.9 million identify as not "mixed". So the population has increased, this has no bearing whatsoever of whether or not a genocide happened. Reduction of population form 2.1 million (if I were to take this number, which I don't believe to be accurate at all) to 250,000 is still 90% killed, but on top of that, their culture and way of life was destroyed and they were placed in concentration camps.

Maybe if Mexicans invaded the US and killed off 90% of Whites (really more like 98% as the population was around 10M), perhaps most of them with a disease or two, in the US and placed the surviving Whites in concentration camps, it would seem more like genocide to you, eh?

As to inter-Native wars, those had occurred for centuries and is not a cause of their stark reduction in numbers. It probably served mainly to keep the population sustainable.

I do agree that disease made the task of genocide easier. Aside form biological warfare, the fact is that Manifest Destiny and the Europeans' view of Natives as "savages" (much like you view, say, Muslims) guaranteed the outcome in any event - it simply would have cost more bullets had the viruses not struck first.

Moreover, many tribes were entirely eliminated, and thus the term genocide properly applies to those tribes.

Some Indian tribes were capable of shocking levels of brutality against both European settlers and rival Indian tribes, but go ahead and cling to the fiction that they were highly spiritual, civilized and non-violent people undeserving of the fate which befell them.

Some were brutal in the defense of their lands, I have no doubt. As brutal as, what, the British and their firebombings of Germany, when Britain was never even invaded? Probably not that brutal. Or the Spaniards' brutality to native populations in Central America, who greeted their ships with dance and feasts but were soon turned into mining slaves with a very short life expectancy due to their intolerable slave conditions?

Also, there were many different tribes with different attributes. The Hopi, for example, were very peaceful, not that it helped their cause one bit.

What group of non-Muslims living under Muslim rule has experienced that kind of population growth?

You are comparing apples and oranges. Native Americans have increased in number but none of them lives their life the way they did before the Europeans came and destroyed their cultures (save for some Aleutians). If you look at Muslims, they encompass all kinds of races and cultures, and AFAIK they have all increased in population, from Arabs and Africans to Indonesians and Indians (Pakistanis). Sure they don't have their prior pagan beliefs, but neither do the tribes of Europe, do they, after Christianity destroyed their pagan belief systems? (Though Scotland boasts some druids again, lol.)

Cheers

So you believe the lowest estimate, fine, I don’t. Ten million north of the Rio Grande is actually a consensus estimate, others put the number far higher, at 18 million (Dobyns). These are all estimates. And Kennewock man has nothing whatsoever to do with the Native American population in 1492.

10 million is not a consensus estimate and according to some data I was able to quickly pull up “researchers” put the estimate north of the Rio Grande at 4 million to 12 million. But again others put the number at 2-3 million max which seems logical given the stone age level of the Indians. Kennewick man is relevant given that he’s likely of European origin and carbon dating means he and his people were here at least 9000 years ago at the same time as “native” Americans. Recent DNA results purportedly prove his native American ancestry but scientists who strongly disagree based on previous analysis won’t be given access to his remains.

You think the 4 million alleged Armenian dead is accurate, or the 6 million dead in the holohoax?

No I don’t. 1.5 million murdered Armenians is the accepted figure and to my knowledge even Armenians aren’t disputing that. No more than one million Jews died in German held territory and it was far from systematic.

The 1900 census put their population in the US (including reservations) at 250,000.

This is far from scientific as the census did not count “Indians not taxed” living in sparsely settled areas of the U.S. And some Indians living among the general population did not admit to Indian ancestry on the census to avoid discrimination. Further, I doubt filling out a census form was high on an Indian’s list of things to do, so on a circumstantial basis 250K is artificially low.

There are also lots of Armenians and Jews running around. I would note, of those 5.4 million, there are a large number of Elizabeth Warrens. 2.9 million identify as not “mixed”. So the population has increased, this has no bearing whatsoever of whether or not a genocide happened.

Sure, but have Armenians and Jews increased 1200% like the American Indian? Not even close. Using your figures, 250K Indians in 1900 grew to 2.9 million (this assumes the other 2.5 million are Lizzy Warren types and wannabes) which is an increase of 1200% in 116 years which is staggering.

…..but on top of that, their culture and way of life was destroyed and they were placed in concentration camps.

True, their culture and way of life were destroyed but concentration camps were simply holding centers, not death camps as you’re insinuating, and first generation Japanese, Italians and Germans were also herded into them during WWII. Do you think Indians want to give up TV, supermarkets and living indoors to live in tepees, hunt buffalo, sometimes die of starvation and disease (irrespective of the evil white man) torture other Indians and dance around the campfire?

Maybe if Mexicans invaded the US and killed off 90% of Whites (really more like 98% as the population was around 10M), perhaps most of them with a disease or two, in the US and placed the surviving Whites in concentration camps, it would seem more like genocide to you, eh?

You keep using genocide pretty loosely. If it was largely by disease then no, it wouldn’t be genocide unless the Mestizos were deliberately trying to infect and kill us with their exotic diseases. Russia lost upwards to 20 million military and civilian personnel in WWII yet nobody calls that genocide because it technically isn’t. That’s because it was in the context of a war and the deaths resulted from pitched battle with the Germans and disease and starvation that results from disruptions in food supply and medicine. Similarly, there came a point when European settlers and later the U.S. government waged war upon the Indian tribes but after the cessation of hostilities their population vastly increased as noted above. Context is key.

As to inter-Native wars, those had occurred for centuries and is not a cause of their stark reduction in numbers. It probably served mainly to keep the population sustainable.

Oh, all for a good cause. Otherwise, you don’t know that inter-tribal warfare didn’t account in a stark reduction in numbers and since you want to pin a genocide on whitey that’s your story and your sticking to it.

…..the Europeans’ view of Natives as “savages” (much like you view, say, Muslims)

I never said all Muslims are savages, but those in our nations committing acts of violence have certainly earned that label. Are the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs in the U.K. not savages in your view? I’ll bet if whites were doing it to Muslims you’d have a stronger opinion.

Some were brutal in the defense of their lands, I have no doubt.

When they attacked other Indian tribes and murdered them, stole their property, killed their children and carried off their women was that “in defense of their lands”? But if brutality in defense of one’s land is ok then the Europeans are within their rights to resort to shocking levels of violence and brutality against the Muslim interlopers, right?

You are comparing apples and oranges. Native Americans have increased in number but none of them lives their life the way they did before the Europeans came and destroyed their cultures (save for some Aleutians).

Apples and apples. Again, we’re a free country and there’s nothing stopping them from recreating their wondrous culture and religion so long as they don’t scalp anyone or try to carry off women and property of U.S citizens. But something tells me few would elect to live in tepees and hunt buffalo. They would be on a very short leash living under Muslim rule if they weren’t all killed off or converted to Islam.

If you look at Muslims, they encompass all kinds of races and cultures, and AFAIK they have all increased in population, from Arabs and Africans to Indonesians and Indians (Pakistanis). Sure they don’t have their prior pagan beliefs, but neither do the tribes of Europe, do they, after Christianity destroyed their pagan belief systems? (Though Scotland boasts some druids again, lol.)

I think you missed the point. First, concerning pagan Europe, most willingly converted when they were militarily more powerful than Christianity. The Germanic Goths could have utterly destroyed Christian Rome and eradicated Christianity from Europe yet they didn’t and submitted to Christ when nobody forced them to. Ironically, it was the newly converted barbarians who, with great zeal, sometimes forcibly converted fellow pagan Europeans such as when Charlemagne beheaded 3000 peaceful Anglo-Saxons for refusing to convert. But the practice was not widespread.

By contrast, Egypt used to be 90% Christian and is now 10% Christian and 90% Muslim. Afghanistan used to be Buddhist but is now entirely Muslim. Buddhists did not see a 1200% increase in population following the Muslim conquest and neither did Middle Eastern Christians who are now on the verge of extinction.

All kinds of quirky religions are sprouting up in the Western world including paganism. This type of trend wouldn’t be taken lightly in Muslim ruled nations.

By contrast, Egypt used to be 90% Christian and is now 10% Christian and 90% Muslim. Afghanistan used to be Buddhist but is now entirely Muslim.

Correct, because the vast amount of those people also peacefully converted. Were there policies in place to incentivize conversion - of course there were, Islam works that way when it is in charge. But offering someone a financial boon or promise of less social restrictions for converting is not forcing them to convert (any more than offering Muslims a tax break to abjure should be considered forcing them to convert) - except by the definition of most desperate of critics. You can review my post #65 for references, including from Copts themselves.

And your Goth example has plenty of analogy in the Muslim world. No Arab armies forced their way into West Africa; it was converted because of their elite adopting Islam and encouraging it in their people. Same thing in South East Asia (Malays, Javanese, Sumatrans, etc.) who were almost all either Hindu or Buddhist - no invading Muslim army or navy landed there. Even the Mongol Khanates accepted Islam while holding the sword over the necks of the Muslims and after having completely decimated their cities and routing their armies.

Hi Ron (assuming you are really Ron Unz, hard to know without a registration system or maybe your handle is reserved? :)).

First, thanks for putting this great site together.

To your points, I think we all grew up with a lot of flag-waving BS about US history. Lots or revelations in the meantime have dispelled many of these myths - the Native American myths are one set of these. For example, Native Americans clearly had large numbers of cities.

While there are many resources available (and, of course, as with any history, it is impossible to prove what is really true™ - indeed, people cannot even agree who attacked a UN convoy in Aleppo a few days ago, and how it was destroyed, despite all the technology available, how is it possible to agree on what happened centuries ago?)

Nonetheless, I offer the following two (random short) reads for your consideration:

Thornton, American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492

Well, I can’t say glancing at a few pages of that Thornton book you recommended much changed my mind. He discusses the extreme difficulty of ascertaining the Amerind population, and provides a convenient table with the 20 or so estimates by different anthropologists over the years. Nearly all of them are exactly the 1-2M figure I’d always heard, while Dobyns is an *extreme* outlier, claiming a total of 10-18M. Furthermore, Thornton (p.30) specifically explains why even based on his own methodology, Dobyns’s figures are probably wrong by a factor of 2-3x, and maybe a factor of 5-8x.

I’m not an expert, but if almost all the experts say one thing, but one of them says something totally different, the former are more likely to be correct.

Since Northern Amerinds had a very primitive economic system, generally lived in tiny villages, and had no cities, the 1-2M figure seems pretty plausible to me. The vastly larger figure just seems like the sort of ridiculous ideological propaganda that has corrupted scholarship over the last couple of generations.

Anyway, the whole talk of “genocide” is just totally ridiculous. The plausible part of Dobyns’s argument—I think generally accepted—is that European diseases reached the Northern Amerinds, wiping out maybe 80-95% of the local population, generations before any Europeans settlers themselves arrived, which is why their population estimates were so low.

So maybe you should be demanding a Nuremberg Genocide Trial for the Smallpox virus…

{ The plausible part of Dobyns’s argument—I think generally accepted—is that European diseases reached the Northern Amerinds, wiping out maybe 80-95% of the local population, generations before any Europeans settlers themselves arrived, which is why their population estimates were so low.}

Right.

{So maybe you should be demanding a Nuremberg Genocide Trial for the Smallpox virus…}

We definitely should.

And........as soon as the Smallpox virus is found guilty and hanged by the neck until dead, we should convene a Nuremberg Genocide Trial for......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death

{The Black Death or Black Plague was one of the most devastating pandemics in human history, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 75 to 200 million people and peaking in Europe in the years 1346–53.[1][2][3] Although there were several competing theories as to the etiology of the Black Death, analysis of DNA from victims in northern and southern Europe published in 2010 and 2011 indicates that the pathogen responsible was the Yersinia pestis bacterium, probably causing several forms of plague.[4][5]

The Black Death is thought to have originated in the arid plains of Central Asia, where it then travelled along the Silk Road, reaching Crimea by 1343.[6] From there, it was most likely carried by Oriental rat fleas living on the black rats that were regular passengers on merchant ships. Spreading throughout the Mediterranean and Europe, the Black Death is estimated to have killed 30–60% of Europe's total population.[7] In total, the plague reduced the world population from an estimated 450 million down to 350–375 million in the 14th century. The world population as a whole did not recover to pre-plague levels until the 17th century.[8] The plague recurred occasionally in Europe until the 19th century.

The plague created a series of religious, social, and economic upheavals, which had profound effects on the course of European history.}

Well, I can’t say glancing at a few pages of that Thornton book you recommended much changed my mind.

The 1-2 milion figures, as explained in the book on pages 27-28, are all based on Mooney's estimate. Thornton correctly critiques these numbers as unduly low as they omit the first wave of deaths from disease, which probably killed off 80-90% of the entire population. So if you take Mooney's number of 1.1 million, and assume this is only 10-20% of the original population, you are left with an initial population in the range 5.5 million to 11 million.

Also, you might have read a bit further. On page 32, he gives his own estimate for the contiguous United States in 1492 as over 5 million.

I’m not an expert, but if almost all the experts say one thing, but one of them says something totally different, the former are more likely to be correct.

There is always the threat of normative bias and group think. If 100,000 experts accept an estimate as gospel, without verifying the figures through independent research, the data is no more valid than if nobody accepted the estimate.

Since Northern Amerinds had a very primitive economic system, generally lived in tiny villages, and had no cities, the 1-2M figure seems pretty plausible to me. The vastly larger figure just seems like the sort of ridiculous ideological propaganda that has corrupted scholarship over the last couple of generations.

The United States is very large. In 1900, the total US rural population was 46 million (and total population was 100 million). (By the way, cities do not add to the number of people an area can support. The three primary limitations on human population growth are disease, famine, and war. Urban areas allow for concentrations of people but this does not ipso facto increase food availability or reduce disease or war.)

On the other hand, technology (more drought resistant seeds, irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, etc.) does increase food availability. At 1900, these technologies were not yet very advanced in the US, yet still a population of 90 million was supported; and, indeed, agriculture was the largest US export (about 58% of total exports).

Anyway, the whole talk of “genocide” is just totally ridiculous.

I disagree, it was the clearest case of genocide in history. Even if the populatino was only 2 million, their way of life was still utterly and intentionally destroyed. Maybe you should check the definition of genocide. If there had been 100 million Native Americans in the US, eventually, they would have all been killed or placed in camps. This is the necessary result of Manifest Destiny and the utter contempt and disdain with which Native Americans were viewed by the Europeans. In fact, we have actual quotes from US leaders which are clear and unambiguous calls for genocide. See e.g. here (see particularly the quote from James Monroe, dated Oct. 5, 1817) and here.

You may also remember that the Europeans killed off the bison so that the Natives would not have food to hunt and eat. From the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide is defined as, amongst other things, "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part ... with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such". A clear fit. Just read the quotes with this definition in mind.

So maybe you should be demanding a Nuremberg Genocide Trial for the Smallpox virus…

Hey, it wasn't like after the Europeans wiped out 90% of the locals, innocently or not, they allowed them to recover. Instead they used the opportunity to exterminate what was left of them.

Under the definition of genocide, even killing 100 people to destroy their culture and way of life is genocide. From the above quotes, it cannot be reasonably denied that this is what happened. The Europeans were going to steal their land and they were going to kill them all if they resisted (unfortunately in this regard for the Native Americans, their entire way of life revolved around their land).

So you believe the lowest estimate, fine, I don’t. Ten million north of the Rio Grande is actually a consensus estimate, others put the number far higher, at 18 million

Well, I haven't read this thread, but happened to notice this particular comment. And I'm *extremely* skeptical about such huge alleged numbers of Amerinds.

I'll admit that aside from reading Mann's 1491 book, I'm totally ignorant of the topic, but decades ago when I was in school, the estimated Amerind total was more like 1-2M, which seems much more plausible to me. Perhaps I'm writing from total ignorance, but here are a few questions:

(1) There weren't any Amerind cities. How can you have a population of 10-18M without any cities? By contrast, everyone knows that the Incas and Aztecs had gigantic cities and huge populations.

(2) As far as I know, the Northern Amerinds were mostly hunter-gatherer tribes or fairly primitive agriculturalists, so their population density was extremely low. How in the world can you have so many millions of them supported by such a primitive economic system?

(3) Once the various Europeans arrived, there were lots of wars and massacres, but wasn't the number of fatalities rather tiny, maybe totalling some tens of thousands over a couple of hundred years of fighting?

(4) The Cherokee and the other "civilized tribes" were probably the most advanced of all the Amerinds, but according to Wikipedia, the famous "Trail of Tears" involving their total explusion including only 16,000 of them. Doesn't that provide a sense of how utterly tiny the number of Amerinds ever was?

Maybe I'm totally mistaken, but as of now I'd assume that the notion that there were 10-20M Amerind hunter-gatherers living in North America is just some sort of crazy hoax, just like so many other hoaxes in our corrupted academic world.

Exactly. I believe the highly inflated number of 10-18 million is being used to make the genocide narrative sexier and eye popping and make it appear as if the European settlers were afflicted with a genocidal blood lust unequaled in the history of the world. I believe approximately 1000 Indians died during the “Trail of Tears” which doesn’t constitute genocide to any reasonable person.

So you believe the lowest estimate, fine, I don’t. Ten million north of the Rio Grande is actually a consensus estimate, others put the number far higher, at 18 million (Dobyns). These are all estimates. And Kennewock man has nothing whatsoever to do with the Native American population in 1492.

10 million is not a consensus estimate and according to some data I was able to quickly pull up "researchers" put the estimate north of the Rio Grande at 4 million to 12 million. But again others put the number at 2-3 million max which seems logical given the stone age level of the Indians. Kennewick man is relevant given that he's likely of European origin and carbon dating means he and his people were here at least 9000 years ago at the same time as "native" Americans. Recent DNA results purportedly prove his native American ancestry but scientists who strongly disagree based on previous analysis won't be given access to his remains.

You think the 4 million alleged Armenian dead is accurate, or the 6 million dead in the holohoax?

No I don't. 1.5 million murdered Armenians is the accepted figure and to my knowledge even Armenians aren't disputing that. No more than one million Jews died in German held territory and it was far from systematic.

The 1900 census put their population in the US (including reservations) at 250,000.

This is far from scientific as the census did not count "Indians not taxed" living in sparsely settled areas of the U.S. And some Indians living among the general population did not admit to Indian ancestry on the census to avoid discrimination. Further, I doubt filling out a census form was high on an Indian's list of things to do, so on a circumstantial basis 250K is artificially low.

There are also lots of Armenians and Jews running around. I would note, of those 5.4 million, there are a large number of Elizabeth Warrens. 2.9 million identify as not “mixed”. So the population has increased, this has no bearing whatsoever of whether or not a genocide happened.

Sure, but have Armenians and Jews increased 1200% like the American Indian? Not even close. Using your figures, 250K Indians in 1900 grew to 2.9 million (this assumes the other 2.5 million are Lizzy Warren types and wannabes) which is an increase of 1200% in 116 years which is staggering.

.....but on top of that, their culture and way of life was destroyed and they were placed in concentration camps.

True, their culture and way of life were destroyed but concentration camps were simply holding centers, not death camps as you're insinuating, and first generation Japanese, Italians and Germans were also herded into them during WWII. Do you think Indians want to give up TV, supermarkets and living indoors to live in tepees, hunt buffalo, sometimes die of starvation and disease (irrespective of the evil white man) torture other Indians and dance around the campfire?

Maybe if Mexicans invaded the US and killed off 90% of Whites (really more like 98% as the population was around 10M), perhaps most of them with a disease or two, in the US and placed the surviving Whites in concentration camps, it would seem more like genocide to you, eh?

You keep using genocide pretty loosely. If it was largely by disease then no, it wouldn't be genocide unless the Mestizos were deliberately trying to infect and kill us with their exotic diseases. Russia lost upwards to 20 million military and civilian personnel in WWII yet nobody calls that genocide because it technically isn't. That's because it was in the context of a war and the deaths resulted from pitched battle with the Germans and disease and starvation that results from disruptions in food supply and medicine. Similarly, there came a point when European settlers and later the U.S. government waged war upon the Indian tribes but after the cessation of hostilities their population vastly increased as noted above. Context is key.

As to inter-Native wars, those had occurred for centuries and is not a cause of their stark reduction in numbers. It probably served mainly to keep the population sustainable.

Oh, all for a good cause. Otherwise, you don't know that inter-tribal warfare didn't account in a stark reduction in numbers and since you want to pin a genocide on whitey that's your story and your sticking to it.

.....the Europeans’ view of Natives as “savages” (much like you view, say, Muslims)

I never said all Muslims are savages, but those in our nations committing acts of violence have certainly earned that label. Are the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs in the U.K. not savages in your view? I'll bet if whites were doing it to Muslims you'd have a stronger opinion.

Some were brutal in the defense of their lands, I have no doubt.

When they attacked other Indian tribes and murdered them, stole their property, killed their children and carried off their women was that "in defense of their lands"? But if brutality in defense of one's land is ok then the Europeans are within their rights to resort to shocking levels of violence and brutality against the Muslim interlopers, right?

You are comparing apples and oranges. Native Americans have increased in number but none of them lives their life the way they did before the Europeans came and destroyed their cultures (save for some Aleutians).

Apples and apples. Again, we're a free country and there's nothing stopping them from recreating their wondrous culture and religion so long as they don't scalp anyone or try to carry off women and property of U.S citizens. But something tells me few would elect to live in tepees and hunt buffalo. They would be on a very short leash living under Muslim rule if they weren't all killed off or converted to Islam.

If you look at Muslims, they encompass all kinds of races and cultures, and AFAIK they have all increased in population, from Arabs and Africans to Indonesians and Indians (Pakistanis). Sure they don’t have their prior pagan beliefs, but neither do the tribes of Europe, do they, after Christianity destroyed their pagan belief systems? (Though Scotland boasts some druids again, lol.)

I think you missed the point. First, concerning pagan Europe, most willingly converted when they were militarily more powerful than Christianity. The Germanic Goths could have utterly destroyed Christian Rome and eradicated Christianity from Europe yet they didn't and submitted to Christ when nobody forced them to. Ironically, it was the newly converted barbarians who, with great zeal, sometimes forcibly converted fellow pagan Europeans such as when Charlemagne beheaded 3000 peaceful Anglo-Saxons for refusing to convert. But the practice was not widespread.

By contrast, Egypt used to be 90% Christian and is now 10% Christian and 90% Muslim. Afghanistan used to be Buddhist but is now entirely Muslim. Buddhists did not see a 1200% increase in population following the Muslim conquest and neither did Middle Eastern Christians who are now on the verge of extinction.

All kinds of quirky religions are sprouting up in the Western world including paganism. This type of trend wouldn't be taken lightly in Muslim ruled nations.

By contrast, Egypt used to be 90% Christian and is now 10% Christian and 90% Muslim. Afghanistan used to be Buddhist but is now entirely Muslim.

Correct, because the vast amount of those people also peacefully converted. Were there policies in place to incentivize conversion – of course there were, Islam works that way when it is in charge. But offering someone a financial boon or promise of less social restrictions for converting is not forcing them to convert (any more than offering Muslims a tax break to abjure should be considered forcing them to convert) – except by the definition of most desperate of critics. You can review my post #65 for references, including from Copts themselves.

And your Goth example has plenty of analogy in the Muslim world. No Arab armies forced their way into West Africa; it was converted because of their elite adopting Islam and encouraging it in their people. Same thing in South East Asia (Malays, Javanese, Sumatrans, etc.) who were almost all either Hindu or Buddhist – no invading Muslim army or navy landed there. Even the Mongol Khanates accepted Islam while holding the sword over the necks of the Muslims and after having completely decimated their cities and routing their armies.

{Correct, because the vast amount of those people also peacefully converted}

I have no knowledge about Afghanistan, but can you substantiate your assertion that Christian Copts peacefully converted to Islam?

Since conversion took place after Muslim Arab invasion and conquest of Egypt, I find it extremely hard to believe large numbers of Christians peacefully converted to Islam. I am aware of Christians and non-Christians voluntarily converting to Islam. But I am not aware of massive - peaceful - conversions.

As I've said before in some of our previous exchanges, I tend to agree that Muslim conquest in the case of Egypt did not result in immediate, large scale forcible conversions, or conversions by the sword. Instead, it was a gradual process over many centuries owing to the system of legal discrimination against Copts by Muslims and affirmed in your fist link:

"The Christian face of Egypt started to change by the beginning of the second millennium A.D., when Copts, in addition to the "Gezya" tax, suffered from specific disabilities, some of which were serious and interfered with their freedom of worship. For example, there were restrictions on repairing old Churches and building new ones, on testifying in court, on public behavior, on adoption, on inheritance, on public religious activities, and on dress codes. Slowly but steadily, by the end of the 12th century, the face of Egypt changed from a predominantly Christian to a predominantly Muslim country and the Coptic community occupied an inferior position and lived in some expectation of Muslim hostility, which periodically flared into violence. It is remarkable that the well-being of Copts was more or less related to the well-being of their rulers. In particular, the Copts suffered most in those periods when Arab dynasties were at their low. "

So there were periods of peace and toleration followed by periods of Muslim hostility and intolerance towards Coptic Christians and over time this led to the diminution of their formerly large communities in Egypt. A very similar process of conversion by legal discrimination occurred after the Turkish Muslim conquest of Serbia. As an aside, in the 19th century Muslim Turk general Hurshi Pasha built a pyramid of skulls from defeated Serbian rebels to gloat over his victory and as a warning to any future Serbian upstarts.

http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/skull-tower-nis

It does appear that Islam was eagerly accepted by most of the natives in Malaysia, Indonesia, Java and Sumatra after being introduced to it by Sufi traders.

When European Christians colonized Algeria and other Muslim nations they made no attempt to convert Muslims either peacefully or forcefully. This is owing to the tolerance of the white European race and since they were primarily concerned with economic exploitation and not religious conversion of the Muslim population. If the roles were reversed things would have turned out quite differently for the Europeans as the process of reverse colonization on the European mainland is proving today.

Even the Christian crusaders of outremer made few if any attempts at converting Muslims after their initial successes reclaiming the Holy Land. And some Muslims willingly lived under Christian kings although I do believe they had to pay a poll tax similar to the Jizya.

Thornton, American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492

Well, I can't say glancing at a few pages of that Thornton book you recommended much changed my mind. He discusses the extreme difficulty of ascertaining the Amerind population, and provides a convenient table with the 20 or so estimates by different anthropologists over the years. Nearly all of them are exactly the 1-2M figure I'd always heard, while Dobyns is an *extreme* outlier, claiming a total of 10-18M. Furthermore, Thornton (p.30) specifically explains why even based on his own methodology, Dobyns's figures are probably wrong by a factor of 2-3x, and maybe a factor of 5-8x.

I'm not an expert, but if almost all the experts say one thing, but one of them says something totally different, the former are more likely to be correct.

Since Northern Amerinds had a very primitive economic system, generally lived in tiny villages, and had no cities, the 1-2M figure seems pretty plausible to me. The vastly larger figure just seems like the sort of ridiculous ideological propaganda that has corrupted scholarship over the last couple of generations.

Anyway, the whole talk of "genocide" is just totally ridiculous. The plausible part of Dobyns's argument---I think generally accepted---is that European diseases reached the Northern Amerinds, wiping out maybe 80-95% of the local population, generations before any Europeans settlers themselves arrived, which is why their population estimates were so low.

So maybe you should be demanding a Nuremberg Genocide Trial for the Smallpox virus...

{Anyway, the whole talk of “genocide” is just totally ridiculous.}

Yes it is.

{ The plausible part of Dobyns’s argument—I think generally accepted—is that European diseases reached the Northern Amerinds, wiping out maybe 80-95% of the local population, generations before any Europeans settlers themselves arrived, which is why their population estimates were so low.}

Right.

{So maybe you should be demanding a Nuremberg Genocide Trial for the Smallpox virus…}

We definitely should.

And……..as soon as the Smallpox virus is found guilty and hanged by the neck until dead, we should convene a Nuremberg Genocide Trial for……

{The Black Death or Black Plague was one of the most devastating pandemics in human history, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 75 to 200 million people and peaking in Europe in the years 1346–53.[1][2][3] Although there were several competing theories as to the etiology of the Black Death, analysis of DNA from victims in northern and southern Europe published in 2010 and 2011 indicates that the pathogen responsible was the Yersinia pestis bacterium, probably causing several forms of plague.[4][5]

The Black Death is thought to have originated in the arid plains of Central Asia, where it then travelled along the Silk Road, reaching Crimea by 1343.[6] From there, it was most likely carried by Oriental rat fleas living on the black rats that were regular passengers on merchant ships. Spreading throughout the Mediterranean and Europe, the Black Death is estimated to have killed 30–60% of Europe’s total population.[7] In total, the plague reduced the world population from an estimated 450 million down to 350–375 million in the 14th century. The world population as a whole did not recover to pre-plague levels until the 17th century.[8] The plague recurred occasionally in Europe until the 19th century.

The plague created a series of religious, social, and economic upheavals, which had profound effects on the course of European history.}

And if the Muslims had invaded after the Black Plague had taken its toll, and killed or interred all of the survivors to take their land, I suspect you would be making a case for genocide (and I would agree with you).

Thornton, American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492

Well, I can't say glancing at a few pages of that Thornton book you recommended much changed my mind. He discusses the extreme difficulty of ascertaining the Amerind population, and provides a convenient table with the 20 or so estimates by different anthropologists over the years. Nearly all of them are exactly the 1-2M figure I'd always heard, while Dobyns is an *extreme* outlier, claiming a total of 10-18M. Furthermore, Thornton (p.30) specifically explains why even based on his own methodology, Dobyns's figures are probably wrong by a factor of 2-3x, and maybe a factor of 5-8x.

I'm not an expert, but if almost all the experts say one thing, but one of them says something totally different, the former are more likely to be correct.

Since Northern Amerinds had a very primitive economic system, generally lived in tiny villages, and had no cities, the 1-2M figure seems pretty plausible to me. The vastly larger figure just seems like the sort of ridiculous ideological propaganda that has corrupted scholarship over the last couple of generations.

Anyway, the whole talk of "genocide" is just totally ridiculous. The plausible part of Dobyns's argument---I think generally accepted---is that European diseases reached the Northern Amerinds, wiping out maybe 80-95% of the local population, generations before any Europeans settlers themselves arrived, which is why their population estimates were so low.

So maybe you should be demanding a Nuremberg Genocide Trial for the Smallpox virus...

Well, I can’t say glancing at a few pages of that Thornton book you recommended much changed my mind.

The 1-2 milion figures, as explained in the book on pages 27-28, are all based on Mooney’s estimate. Thornton correctly critiques these numbers as unduly low as they omit the first wave of deaths from disease, which probably killed off 80-90% of the entire population. So if you take Mooney’s number of 1.1 million, and assume this is only 10-20% of the original population, you are left with an initial population in the range 5.5 million to 11 million.

Also, you might have read a bit further. On page 32, he gives his own estimate for the contiguous United States in 1492 as over 5 million.

I’m not an expert, but if almost all the experts say one thing, but one of them says something totally different, the former are more likely to be correct.

There is always the threat of normative bias and group think. If 100,000 experts accept an estimate as gospel, without verifying the figures through independent research, the data is no more valid than if nobody accepted the estimate.

Since Northern Amerinds had a very primitive economic system, generally lived in tiny villages, and had no cities, the 1-2M figure seems pretty plausible to me. The vastly larger figure just seems like the sort of ridiculous ideological propaganda that has corrupted scholarship over the last couple of generations.

The United States is very large. In 1900, the total US rural population was 46 million (and total population was 100 million). (By the way, cities do not add to the number of people an area can support. The three primary limitations on human population growth are disease, famine, and war. Urban areas allow for concentrations of people but this does not ipso facto increase food availability or reduce disease or war.)

On the other hand, technology (more drought resistant seeds, irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, etc.) does increase food availability. At 1900, these technologies were not yet very advanced in the US, yet still a population of 90 million was supported; and, indeed, agriculture was the largest US export (about 58% of total exports).

Anyway, the whole talk of “genocide” is just totally ridiculous.

I disagree, it was the clearest case of genocide in history. Even if the populatino was only 2 million, their way of life was still utterly and intentionally destroyed. Maybe you should check the definition of genocide. If there had been 100 million Native Americans in the US, eventually, they would have all been killed or placed in camps. This is the necessary result of Manifest Destiny and the utter contempt and disdain with which Native Americans were viewed by the Europeans. In fact, we have actual quotes from US leaders which are clear and unambiguous calls for genocide. See e.g. here (see particularly the quote from James Monroe, dated Oct. 5, 1817) and here.

You may also remember that the Europeans killed off the bison so that the Natives would not have food to hunt and eat. From the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide is defined as, amongst other things, “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part … with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such“. A clear fit. Just read the quotes with this definition in mind.

So maybe you should be demanding a Nuremberg Genocide Trial for the Smallpox virus…

Hey, it wasn’t like after the Europeans wiped out 90% of the locals, innocently or not, they allowed them to recover. Instead they used the opportunity to exterminate what was left of them.

Under the definition of genocide, even killing 100 people to destroy their culture and way of life is genocide. From the above quotes, it cannot be reasonably denied that this is what happened. The Europeans were going to steal their land and they were going to kill them all if they resisted (unfortunately in this regard for the Native Americans, their entire way of life revolved around their land).

Under the definition of genocide, even killing 100 people to destroy their culture and way of life is genocide.

Well, under that very silly definition, the world has seen an *awful* lot of genocides. Presumably, it goes even farther than that, and if you just shoot some random guy you've (obviously) destroyed his culture and way of life. So given that the U.S. has 15,000 murders per year, it also must have 15,000 genocides per year.

In fact, I had the impression that some of those definitions of "genocide" include "cultural genocide," like when the Amerinds were pressured into wearing clothes and living in houses and becoming Christians.

Presumably, that sort of "cultural genocide" also includes TV commercials which pressure people into abandoning their traditional cultural love of Coke and switching to Pepsi instead. Maybe all the advertising agencies should be put on trial for genocide...

By contrast, Egypt used to be 90% Christian and is now 10% Christian and 90% Muslim. Afghanistan used to be Buddhist but is now entirely Muslim.

Correct, because the vast amount of those people also peacefully converted. Were there policies in place to incentivize conversion - of course there were, Islam works that way when it is in charge. But offering someone a financial boon or promise of less social restrictions for converting is not forcing them to convert (any more than offering Muslims a tax break to abjure should be considered forcing them to convert) - except by the definition of most desperate of critics. You can review my post #65 for references, including from Copts themselves.

And your Goth example has plenty of analogy in the Muslim world. No Arab armies forced their way into West Africa; it was converted because of their elite adopting Islam and encouraging it in their people. Same thing in South East Asia (Malays, Javanese, Sumatrans, etc.) who were almost all either Hindu or Buddhist - no invading Muslim army or navy landed there. Even the Mongol Khanates accepted Islam while holding the sword over the necks of the Muslims and after having completely decimated their cities and routing their armies.

Peace.

Yo, Talha:

{Correct, because the vast amount of those people also peacefully converted}

I have no knowledge about Afghanistan, but can you substantiate your assertion that Christian Copts peacefully converted to Islam?

Since conversion took place after Muslim Arab invasion and conquest of Egypt, I find it extremely hard to believe large numbers of Christians peacefully converted to Islam. I am aware of Christians and non-Christians voluntarily converting to Islam. But I am not aware of massive - peaceful – conversions.

Good catch. I should be a little guarded in my words there - because the truth requires precision.

First, note the earlier post with the link to the Coptic site which outlines that the first four centuries of Muslim rule were generally good and that "the Coptic Church generally flourished." Also note the article by Nassim Taleb on demographic change and intermarriage leading to the transformation of a society.

Then came the Fatimids who were Ismailis (a heretical offshoot of the Shiah) and they were actually pretty congenial with everyone until the (possibly mad) Caliph Amr al-Hakim:"Then he ordered the Jews and the Christians to accept Islam or emigrate to Byzantine lands. Our sources confirm that many did convert, although many of the converts (both Jews and Christians) returned to their original faith when the decrees were abolished after the end of the persecutions. Al-Hakim's decrees were revoked during his own lifetime. A Christian source maintains that the persecutions lasted for only seven years...The caliph himself permitted the reconstruction of most of the destroyed churches and synagogues and the anti-Christian decrees were postponed for several decades." - He also had the Church of the Holy Sepulchre destroyed, but his successor allowwed the Byzantines to rebuild it.Religious Conversion: History, Experience and Meaning

There is little doubt to me from the academic sources I have read that there were pogroms and communal violence against Copts once the Mamluks take over (the specific instances of which have been recorded as cyclic flare-ups through the span of about a century) and the authorities did not care to do enough to curb the violence. Basically, there were Copts in very highly placed positions in government, which led to some lower class Muslims being envious of their positions and wealth - but it is clear there was no official policy of forced conversion:"The Copts...found the new regime of the Bahri Mamluks to be frequently uninterested in maintaining its 'part' of the traditional covenant of protection. In this sense, the Bahris may not have perpetrated any official oppressions or persectutions against Copts and other non-Muslims, but they did attract a tangibly dark shadow over their dhimmi relationships...Donald Little arguesthat the most clearcut result of these cycles (which reoccurred at least in 1301, 1321, and 1354) and were always a result of mob pressure than government policy) was a wave of mass conversions of Copts escaping the repititions of violence and increasing societal hostility toward them."Coptic Identity and Ayyubid Politics in Egypt 1218-1250

This shadow is lifted once the Ottomans take over and the Hanafi school becomes pre-eminent again as it was in Abassid times:"This dissertation explores the beliefs and worldviews among the Coptic Christian community living in Egypt under Ottoman rule (1516-1798 CE), predominantly through the use of Coptic Church documents. Research in this topic has ultimately isolated three groups of Arabic Christian manuscripts which are closely considered here. These sources, written by Copts themselves, show Copts to be major actors rather than groups “marginalized” by the Islamic society at large." - She also wrote a book on the subject.https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file%3Faccession%3Dosu1068350208%26disposition%3Dinline

But all of this has to take into account that the Copts were already mostly a minority populace before the 10th century - all happened during the time when they were relatively in good relations under the Abbasids (other than when there were intermittent revolts in certain districts) - much of it due to Muslim migration into Egypt which was a prosperous territory:"Adding these results to the evidence that Arab-Muslim immigration and Coptic conversion both took place in Egypt from an early date, and to the specific attestation by al-Maqrizi that Muslims had achieved a majority in most Egyptian villages during the ninth century, we conclude that the Islamization of Egypt to the order of at least 80% was achieved well within the six centuries that elapsed from the Islamic conquest of Egypt to the Mamluk seizure of power in 1250. Several writers are of this opinion, although they all assume that Islamization was achieved mainly by conversion and ignore the factors of Arab-Muslim settlement, intermarriage, and Coptic demographic decline....The Islamization of Egypt was thus achieved by the ninth century, but the early Mamluk period may be seen as a long-delayed conclusion to it, since it gave rise to the last and most important in an intermittent series of Coptic conversion waves."http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MSR_X-2_2006-OSullivan.pdf

So, were there many Copts converting due to societal pressures and fear during Mamluk times - hell yes! Was there a policy of enforced conversion - hell no! And keeping in mind this was a period of around 250 years out of the whole history of Egypt under Muslim rule - this is hardly accounts for the entire picture.

One more point; conversion continues today. Some of it is definitely due to Salafi extremist violence, but note what this Coptic priest states. He is very frustrated by the failure of the Church leadership to retain Copts against conversions to Islam or Evangelical Christianity. The estimates from within the Church are that 80-200 Copts are converting daily to Islam. Note what he says at 3:50 - this is not due to forcing or kidnapping, etc. but that the Church is losing numbers (to even other Christian strains) because it is not fulfilling the spiritual needs of the people:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvyfOsiVQZw

{ The plausible part of Dobyns’s argument—I think generally accepted—is that European diseases reached the Northern Amerinds, wiping out maybe 80-95% of the local population, generations before any Europeans settlers themselves arrived, which is why their population estimates were so low.}

Right.

{So maybe you should be demanding a Nuremberg Genocide Trial for the Smallpox virus…}

We definitely should.

And........as soon as the Smallpox virus is found guilty and hanged by the neck until dead, we should convene a Nuremberg Genocide Trial for......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death

{The Black Death or Black Plague was one of the most devastating pandemics in human history, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 75 to 200 million people and peaking in Europe in the years 1346–53.[1][2][3] Although there were several competing theories as to the etiology of the Black Death, analysis of DNA from victims in northern and southern Europe published in 2010 and 2011 indicates that the pathogen responsible was the Yersinia pestis bacterium, probably causing several forms of plague.[4][5]

The Black Death is thought to have originated in the arid plains of Central Asia, where it then travelled along the Silk Road, reaching Crimea by 1343.[6] From there, it was most likely carried by Oriental rat fleas living on the black rats that were regular passengers on merchant ships. Spreading throughout the Mediterranean and Europe, the Black Death is estimated to have killed 30–60% of Europe's total population.[7] In total, the plague reduced the world population from an estimated 450 million down to 350–375 million in the 14th century. The world population as a whole did not recover to pre-plague levels until the 17th century.[8] The plague recurred occasionally in Europe until the 19th century.

The plague created a series of religious, social, and economic upheavals, which had profound effects on the course of European history.}

And if the Muslims had invaded after the Black Plague had taken its toll, and killed or interred all of the survivors to take their land, I suspect you would be making a case for genocide (and I would agree with you).

Well, I can’t say glancing at a few pages of that Thornton book you recommended much changed my mind.

The 1-2 milion figures, as explained in the book on pages 27-28, are all based on Mooney's estimate. Thornton correctly critiques these numbers as unduly low as they omit the first wave of deaths from disease, which probably killed off 80-90% of the entire population. So if you take Mooney's number of 1.1 million, and assume this is only 10-20% of the original population, you are left with an initial population in the range 5.5 million to 11 million.

Also, you might have read a bit further. On page 32, he gives his own estimate for the contiguous United States in 1492 as over 5 million.

I’m not an expert, but if almost all the experts say one thing, but one of them says something totally different, the former are more likely to be correct.

There is always the threat of normative bias and group think. If 100,000 experts accept an estimate as gospel, without verifying the figures through independent research, the data is no more valid than if nobody accepted the estimate.

Since Northern Amerinds had a very primitive economic system, generally lived in tiny villages, and had no cities, the 1-2M figure seems pretty plausible to me. The vastly larger figure just seems like the sort of ridiculous ideological propaganda that has corrupted scholarship over the last couple of generations.

The United States is very large. In 1900, the total US rural population was 46 million (and total population was 100 million). (By the way, cities do not add to the number of people an area can support. The three primary limitations on human population growth are disease, famine, and war. Urban areas allow for concentrations of people but this does not ipso facto increase food availability or reduce disease or war.)

On the other hand, technology (more drought resistant seeds, irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, etc.) does increase food availability. At 1900, these technologies were not yet very advanced in the US, yet still a population of 90 million was supported; and, indeed, agriculture was the largest US export (about 58% of total exports).

Anyway, the whole talk of “genocide” is just totally ridiculous.

I disagree, it was the clearest case of genocide in history. Even if the populatino was only 2 million, their way of life was still utterly and intentionally destroyed. Maybe you should check the definition of genocide. If there had been 100 million Native Americans in the US, eventually, they would have all been killed or placed in camps. This is the necessary result of Manifest Destiny and the utter contempt and disdain with which Native Americans were viewed by the Europeans. In fact, we have actual quotes from US leaders which are clear and unambiguous calls for genocide. See e.g. here (see particularly the quote from James Monroe, dated Oct. 5, 1817) and here.

You may also remember that the Europeans killed off the bison so that the Natives would not have food to hunt and eat. From the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, genocide is defined as, amongst other things, "Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part ... with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such". A clear fit. Just read the quotes with this definition in mind.

So maybe you should be demanding a Nuremberg Genocide Trial for the Smallpox virus…

Hey, it wasn't like after the Europeans wiped out 90% of the locals, innocently or not, they allowed them to recover. Instead they used the opportunity to exterminate what was left of them.

Under the definition of genocide, even killing 100 people to destroy their culture and way of life is genocide. From the above quotes, it cannot be reasonably denied that this is what happened. The Europeans were going to steal their land and they were going to kill them all if they resisted (unfortunately in this regard for the Native Americans, their entire way of life revolved around their land).

Under the definition of genocide, even killing 100 people to destroy their culture and way of life is genocide.

Well, under that very silly definition, the world has seen an *awful* lot of genocides. Presumably, it goes even farther than that, and if you just shoot some random guy you’ve (obviously) destroyed his culture and way of life. So given that the U.S. has 15,000 murders per year, it also must have 15,000 genocides per year.

In fact, I had the impression that some of those definitions of “genocide” include “cultural genocide,” like when the Amerinds were pressured into wearing clothes and living in houses and becoming Christians.

Presumably, that sort of “cultural genocide” also includes TV commercials which pressure people into abandoning their traditional cultural love of Coke and switching to Pepsi instead. Maybe all the advertising agencies should be put on trial for genocide…

Well, under that very silly definition, the world has seen an *awful* lot of genocides.

It sure has, but I don't see what's silly about it. What's silly perhaps is that you make genocide out to be something it's not. Take a related word, "war crime". A war crime can consist of killing 30 million civilians, or of humiliating one captured soldier on TV. I think part of the problem is, largely due to the holohoax industry, many people have been conditioned to think all genocide is the worst thing imaginable. It can be but does not have to be.

That said, I do think what happened to the Native Americans is a terrible crime. On the other hand I also recognize that, given human nature, it was inevitable that the Native Americans' way of life would end - they simply did not make "adequate use" of their land. Incidentally, the same can be said about modern-day Russia. However, unlike the Native Americans, the Russians have the military technology to defend themselves and their "overabundance" of land. If they didn't, I assume it would be fine for Europeans to go in there and settle where they want, and if the locals (Russians) object, to just start killing them all.

And if Americans continue to object to the Mexican settlers, currently entering the country, it's fair game for the "illegals" to apply "pressure" to stop the locals from "being racist" by, well, killing all of those who object and placing the rest in internment camps. It's a Coke/Pepsi thing.

the Amerinds were pressured into wearing clothes and living in houses and becoming Christians

Pressured? Really? Wow, that's truly cruel. Even if "only" 1 million Native Americans were killed, that's still 333 9/11s. So 9/11, assuming the official story is accurate, was just a small diplomatic effort at requesting politely that the US change its Middle East policy, eh?

I had the impression that some of those definitions of “genocide” include “cultural genocide,” like when the Amerinds were pressured into wearing clothes and living in houses and becoming Christians.

It's worth noting, as I should have done in my initial reply, that "Christianity" at that time was quite similar to "radical Islam" today. A good part of the reason the Europeans exterminated the Native Americans is because the Europeans considered the natives as "savage" "infidels" (see the quotes I linked a few posts back, but I'm sure you know this is true without that reference), much like ISIS treats the Yazidis or the like. And yes, Native American women were raped. Systematically. Indeed, even to this day, White-on-Native American rape is off the charts, exceeding even the high proportion of Black-on-White rapes (the continuing "genocide", see also current North Dakota desecration of sacred burial grounds).

So, if I could make another analogy: imagine a plague comes and kills 90% of Americans. ISIS uses the opportunity of American's weakness to invade and "pressure" Americans to become Wahhabist "Muslims", wear burqas (just a little more clothes, just as was required of Natives) and live under Sharia law (just like English law was 100% alien and unjust to the Natives). The local "savages" and "apostates" that refuse would, naturally, be possibly raped, enslaved (mainly the Spaniards did this but they were also European Christians) and killed or placed in internment camps.

This, of course, would be just fine, right? I mean, at worst, it would be some kind of silly, laughable "cultural genocide", we could banter for hours over it and some beers, right?

Under the definition of genocide, even killing 100 people to destroy their culture and way of life is genocide.

Well, under that very silly definition, the world has seen an *awful* lot of genocides. Presumably, it goes even farther than that, and if you just shoot some random guy you've (obviously) destroyed his culture and way of life. So given that the U.S. has 15,000 murders per year, it also must have 15,000 genocides per year.

In fact, I had the impression that some of those definitions of "genocide" include "cultural genocide," like when the Amerinds were pressured into wearing clothes and living in houses and becoming Christians.

Presumably, that sort of "cultural genocide" also includes TV commercials which pressure people into abandoning their traditional cultural love of Coke and switching to Pepsi instead. Maybe all the advertising agencies should be put on trial for genocide...

Well, under that very silly definition, the world has seen an *awful* lot of genocides.

It sure has, but I don’t see what’s silly about it. What’s silly perhaps is that you make genocide out to be something it’s not. Take a related word, “war crime”. A war crime can consist of killing 30 million civilians, or of humiliating one captured soldier on TV. I think part of the problem is, largely due to the holohoax industry, many people have been conditioned to think all genocide is the worst thing imaginable. It can be but does not have to be.

That said, I do think what happened to the Native Americans is a terrible crime. On the other hand I also recognize that, given human nature, it was inevitable that the Native Americans’ way of life would end – they simply did not make “adequate use” of their land. Incidentally, the same can be said about modern-day Russia. However, unlike the Native Americans, the Russians have the military technology to defend themselves and their “overabundance” of land. If they didn’t, I assume it would be fine for Europeans to go in there and settle where they want, and if the locals (Russians) object, to just start killing them all.

And if Americans continue to object to the Mexican settlers, currently entering the country, it’s fair game for the “illegals” to apply “pressure” to stop the locals from “being racist” by, well, killing all of those who object and placing the rest in internment camps. It’s a Coke/Pepsi thing.

the Amerinds were pressured into wearing clothes and living in houses and becoming Christians

Pressured? Really? Wow, that’s truly cruel. Even if “only” 1 million Native Americans were killed, that’s still 333 9/11s. So 9/11, assuming the official story is accurate, was just a small diplomatic effort at requesting politely that the US change its Middle East policy, eh?

Even if “only” 1 million Native Americans were killed, that’s still 333 9/11s.

But that's an important point. All the scholars, including that Dobryns fellow, agree that almost all the Amerinds killed were killed by European diseases long, long before any European settlers arrived. Maybe it was 1M or maybe 2M or maybe 4+M like that Thornton fellow argues, but Smallpox was the culprit.

Meanwhile, the number killed by European settlers in the U.S. was ridiculously small by comparison. You probably know the figures better than I do, but I vaguely think I've seen estimates of several tens of thousands of total Amerinds killed across something like 200 years of Indian Wars, or maybe an average of a couple of hundred killed per year in the entire country. Plus I think the Amerinds generally killed comparable number of whites during those same wars, and vastly larger number of other Amerinds in all their endless tribal wars during the same period. Indeed, I think the intra-Amerind wars tended to be much more "genocidal" than their wars with whites.

Military conflicts that average maybe 250 deaths per year across the entire U.S. probably aren't "genocidal."

So although you can make a pretty good case that Smallpox could be charged with "genocide," I just can't see the pitifully small casualty-counts of the white-Amerind wars reaching that threshold.

The whole thing is almost as silly as some of the more "excitable" anti-immigration activists saying they're being "genocided" because some immigrants are moving into the neighborhood and driving down wages or driving up rents or something like that.

"And if Americans continue to object to the Mexican settlers, currently entering the country, it’s fair game for the “illegals” to apply “pressure” to stop the locals from “being racist” by, well, killing all of those who object and placing the rest in internment camps. It’s a Coke/Pepsi thing."

All the more reason for us to vote for Trump, pressure our representatives to drop amnesty, push for restricting/reducing welfare, etc.

If illegals did start to actually believe killing us en masse was a good idea, it clearly would work out very badly for them- we have a helluva lot more people and firepower (not to mention being more clever, better educated, etc.).

Well, under that very silly definition, the world has seen an *awful* lot of genocides.

It sure has, but I don't see what's silly about it. What's silly perhaps is that you make genocide out to be something it's not. Take a related word, "war crime". A war crime can consist of killing 30 million civilians, or of humiliating one captured soldier on TV. I think part of the problem is, largely due to the holohoax industry, many people have been conditioned to think all genocide is the worst thing imaginable. It can be but does not have to be.

That said, I do think what happened to the Native Americans is a terrible crime. On the other hand I also recognize that, given human nature, it was inevitable that the Native Americans' way of life would end - they simply did not make "adequate use" of their land. Incidentally, the same can be said about modern-day Russia. However, unlike the Native Americans, the Russians have the military technology to defend themselves and their "overabundance" of land. If they didn't, I assume it would be fine for Europeans to go in there and settle where they want, and if the locals (Russians) object, to just start killing them all.

And if Americans continue to object to the Mexican settlers, currently entering the country, it's fair game for the "illegals" to apply "pressure" to stop the locals from "being racist" by, well, killing all of those who object and placing the rest in internment camps. It's a Coke/Pepsi thing.

the Amerinds were pressured into wearing clothes and living in houses and becoming Christians

Pressured? Really? Wow, that's truly cruel. Even if "only" 1 million Native Americans were killed, that's still 333 9/11s. So 9/11, assuming the official story is accurate, was just a small diplomatic effort at requesting politely that the US change its Middle East policy, eh?

Cheers

Even if “only” 1 million Native Americans were killed, that’s still 333 9/11s.

But that’s an important point. All the scholars, including that Dobryns fellow, agree that almost all the Amerinds killed were killed by European diseases long, long before any European settlers arrived. Maybe it was 1M or maybe 2M or maybe 4+M like that Thornton fellow argues, but Smallpox was the culprit.

Meanwhile, the number killed by European settlers in the U.S. was ridiculously small by comparison. You probably know the figures better than I do, but I vaguely think I’ve seen estimates of several tens of thousands of total Amerinds killed across something like 200 years of Indian Wars, or maybe an average of a couple of hundred killed per year in the entire country. Plus I think the Amerinds generally killed comparable number of whites during those same wars, and vastly larger number of other Amerinds in all their endless tribal wars during the same period. Indeed, I think the intra-Amerind wars tended to be much more “genocidal” than their wars with whites.

Military conflicts that average maybe 250 deaths per year across the entire U.S. probably aren’t “genocidal.”

So although you can make a pretty good case that Smallpox could be charged with “genocide,” I just can’t see the pitifully small casualty-counts of the white-Amerind wars reaching that threshold.

The whole thing is almost as silly as some of the more “excitable” anti-immigration activists saying they’re being “genocided” because some immigrants are moving into the neighborhood and driving down wages or driving up rents or something like that.

But that’s an important point. All the scholars, including that Dobryns fellow, agree that almost all the Amerinds killed were killed by European diseases long, long before any European settlers arrived. Maybe it was 1M or maybe 2M or maybe 4+M like that Thornton fellow argues, but Smallpox was the culprit.

I think it's pretty clear from the literature that Mooney's 1.1 million number is post disease. I.e., that number survived the initial onslaught of disease and was living in the continental US at the time of sustained settler contact. The diseases advanced even ahead of the explorers due to interactions between the tribes.

That was my point in the prior post, that Dobyn's number of 10-18 million is pre-disease and Mooney's number of 1.1 million is post-disease. That means that the 1.1 million that was reduced to 250,000 was not so reduced by disease but rather by war and intentional starvation (destroying of food sources, including the bison). Yet you continue to insist that the 1.1 million estimate is pre-disease and that disease reduced that number by 90%.

In California alone, the Native American population was about 300,000 in 1769 (again, this was post disease as we are talking about 1769, over a century after first contact), which was reduced to 250,000 in 1834 under Mexican rule. At that time the US conquered Mexico and the Native American population was reduced to 16,000 in 1900. This is a reduction of 94% of the survivors of the diseases. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Genocide

And if we are speaking about Christian European settlers generally, the numbers are vastly larger - estimates are of 70-100 million Native Americans living in all the Americas in 1492.

One can quibble over numbers but that is quibbling over trees. The forest view is absolutely clear. Native Americans were living throughout the United States. European settlers (who violently fought each other back in Europe over nothing, really, before coming to America - particularly the English, who were known for traveling the world and subjugating and colonizing anyone they ran across) came, described these natives as "savages", adopted the doctrine of "Manifest Destiny" (which entailed conquering the entire United States), followed by virtually all of the US leaders speaking about "exterminating" the natives, and after about 100 years the natives were all dead or in camps and the settlers controlled the entire land. It really can't get any more obvious.

Under the definition of genocide, even killing 100 people to destroy their culture and way of life is genocide.

Well, under that very silly definition, the world has seen an *awful* lot of genocides. Presumably, it goes even farther than that, and if you just shoot some random guy you've (obviously) destroyed his culture and way of life. So given that the U.S. has 15,000 murders per year, it also must have 15,000 genocides per year.

In fact, I had the impression that some of those definitions of "genocide" include "cultural genocide," like when the Amerinds were pressured into wearing clothes and living in houses and becoming Christians.

Presumably, that sort of "cultural genocide" also includes TV commercials which pressure people into abandoning their traditional cultural love of Coke and switching to Pepsi instead. Maybe all the advertising agencies should be put on trial for genocide...

I had the impression that some of those definitions of “genocide” include “cultural genocide,” like when the Amerinds were pressured into wearing clothes and living in houses and becoming Christians.

It’s worth noting, as I should have done in my initial reply, that “Christianity” at that time was quite similar to “radical Islam” today. A good part of the reason the Europeans exterminated the Native Americans is because the Europeans considered the natives as “savage” “infidels” (see the quotes I linked a few posts back, but I’m sure you know this is true without that reference), much like ISIS treats the Yazidis or the like. And yes, Native American women were raped. Systematically. Indeed, even to this day, White-on-Native American rape is off the charts, exceeding even the high proportion of Black-on-White rapes (the continuing “genocide”, see also current North Dakota desecration of sacred burial grounds).

So, if I could make another analogy: imagine a plague comes and kills 90% of Americans. ISIS uses the opportunity of American’s weakness to invade and “pressure” Americans to become Wahhabist “Muslims”, wear burqas (just a little more clothes, just as was required of Natives) and live under Sharia law (just like English law was 100% alien and unjust to the Natives). The local “savages” and “apostates” that refuse would, naturally, be possibly raped, enslaved (mainly the Spaniards did this but they were also European Christians) and killed or placed in internment camps.

This, of course, would be just fine, right? I mean, at worst, it would be some kind of silly, laughable “cultural genocide”, we could banter for hours over it and some beers, right?

Even if “only” 1 million Native Americans were killed, that’s still 333 9/11s.

But that's an important point. All the scholars, including that Dobryns fellow, agree that almost all the Amerinds killed were killed by European diseases long, long before any European settlers arrived. Maybe it was 1M or maybe 2M or maybe 4+M like that Thornton fellow argues, but Smallpox was the culprit.

Meanwhile, the number killed by European settlers in the U.S. was ridiculously small by comparison. You probably know the figures better than I do, but I vaguely think I've seen estimates of several tens of thousands of total Amerinds killed across something like 200 years of Indian Wars, or maybe an average of a couple of hundred killed per year in the entire country. Plus I think the Amerinds generally killed comparable number of whites during those same wars, and vastly larger number of other Amerinds in all their endless tribal wars during the same period. Indeed, I think the intra-Amerind wars tended to be much more "genocidal" than their wars with whites.

Military conflicts that average maybe 250 deaths per year across the entire U.S. probably aren't "genocidal."

So although you can make a pretty good case that Smallpox could be charged with "genocide," I just can't see the pitifully small casualty-counts of the white-Amerind wars reaching that threshold.

The whole thing is almost as silly as some of the more "excitable" anti-immigration activists saying they're being "genocided" because some immigrants are moving into the neighborhood and driving down wages or driving up rents or something like that.

But that’s an important point. All the scholars, including that Dobryns fellow, agree that almost all the Amerinds killed were killed by European diseases long, long before any European settlers arrived. Maybe it was 1M or maybe 2M or maybe 4+M like that Thornton fellow argues, but Smallpox was the culprit.

I think it’s pretty clear from the literature that Mooney’s 1.1 million number is post disease. I.e., that number survived the initial onslaught of disease and was living in the continental US at the time of sustained settler contact. The diseases advanced even ahead of the explorers due to interactions between the tribes.

That was my point in the prior post, that Dobyn’s number of 10-18 million is pre-disease and Mooney’s number of 1.1 million is post-disease. That means that the 1.1 million that was reduced to 250,000 was not so reduced by disease but rather by war and intentional starvation (destroying of food sources, including the bison). Yet you continue to insist that the 1.1 million estimate is pre-disease and that disease reduced that number by 90%.

In California alone, the Native American population was about 300,000 in 1769 (again, this was post disease as we are talking about 1769, over a century after first contact), which was reduced to 250,000 in 1834 under Mexican rule. At that time the US conquered Mexico and the Native American population was reduced to 16,000 in 1900. This is a reduction of 94% of the survivors of the diseases. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Genocide

And if we are speaking about Christian European settlers generally, the numbers are vastly larger – estimates are of 70-100 million Native Americans living in all the Americas in 1492.

One can quibble over numbers but that is quibbling over trees. The forest view is absolutely clear. Native Americans were living throughout the United States. European settlers (who violently fought each other back in Europe over nothing, really, before coming to America – particularly the English, who were known for traveling the world and subjugating and colonizing anyone they ran across) came, described these natives as “savages”, adopted the doctrine of “Manifest Destiny” (which entailed conquering the entire United States), followed by virtually all of the US leaders speaking about “exterminating” the natives, and after about 100 years the natives were all dead or in camps and the settlers controlled the entire land. It really can’t get any more obvious.

Well, you highly recommended Thornton's 1987 book, and on p. 32 he claims that there were something like 5M Amerinds living in the US around the time of Columbus, and earlier that virtually all the subsequent opulation-reduction was caused by disease rather than slaughter by whites, while very sharply criticizing Dobyn's gigantic numbers. So if Thornton is correct, then Dobyns is basically more or less an incompetent crackpot. Even Thornton's numbers seem extremely high to me.

My impression had always been that maybe 95% of all Amerind population declines had been due to European diseases and maybe 5% due to intentional white activity, and I don't see anything in the Thornton book to contradict that. So I think I'll stick with my previous view that the "Native American Genocide" is just an academic hoax motivated by politically-correct ideology, and leave it there. You can believe whatever you want.

{Correct, because the vast amount of those people also peacefully converted}

I have no knowledge about Afghanistan, but can you substantiate your assertion that Christian Copts peacefully converted to Islam?

Since conversion took place after Muslim Arab invasion and conquest of Egypt, I find it extremely hard to believe large numbers of Christians peacefully converted to Islam. I am aware of Christians and non-Christians voluntarily converting to Islam. But I am not aware of massive - peaceful - conversions.

p.s. I will address your other post(s) later on.

Yo Avery,

Good catch. I should be a little guarded in my words there – because the truth requires precision.

First, note the earlier post with the link to the Coptic site which outlines that the first four centuries of Muslim rule were generally good and that “the Coptic Church generally flourished.” Also note the article by Nassim Taleb on demographic change and intermarriage leading to the transformation of a society.

Then came the Fatimids who were Ismailis (a heretical offshoot of the Shiah) and they were actually pretty congenial with everyone until the (possibly mad) Caliph Amr al-Hakim:
“Then he ordered the Jews and the Christians to accept Islam or emigrate to Byzantine lands. Our sources confirm that many did convert, although many of the converts (both Jews and Christians) returned to their original faith when the decrees were abolished after the end of the persecutions. Al-Hakim’s decrees were revoked during his own lifetime. A Christian source maintains that the persecutions lasted for only seven years…The caliph himself permitted the reconstruction of most of the destroyed churches and synagogues and the anti-Christian decrees were postponed for several decades.” – He also had the Church of the Holy Sepulchre destroyed, but his successor allowwed the Byzantines to rebuild it.Religious Conversion: History, Experience and Meaning

There is little doubt to me from the academic sources I have read that there were pogroms and communal violence against Copts once the Mamluks take over (the specific instances of which have been recorded as cyclic flare-ups through the span of about a century) and the authorities did not care to do enough to curb the violence. Basically, there were Copts in very highly placed positions in government, which led to some lower class Muslims being envious of their positions and wealth – but it is clear there was no official policy of forced conversion:
“The Copts…found the new regime of the Bahri Mamluks to be frequently uninterested in maintaining its ‘part’ of the traditional covenant of protection. In this sense, the Bahris may not have perpetrated any official oppressions or persectutions against Copts and other non-Muslims, but they did attract a tangibly dark shadow over their dhimmi relationships…Donald Little arguesthat the most clearcut result of these cycles (which reoccurred at least in 1301, 1321, and 1354) and were always a result of mob pressure than government policy) was a wave of mass conversions of Copts escaping the repititions of violence and increasing societal hostility toward them.”Coptic Identity and Ayyubid Politics in Egypt 1218-1250

This shadow is lifted once the Ottomans take over and the Hanafi school becomes pre-eminent again as it was in Abassid times:
“This dissertation explores the beliefs and worldviews among the Coptic Christian community living in Egypt under Ottoman rule (1516-1798 CE), predominantly through the use of Coptic Church documents. Research in this topic has ultimately isolated three groups of Arabic Christian manuscripts which are closely considered here. These sources, written by Copts themselves, show Copts to be major actors rather than groups “marginalized” by the Islamic society at large.” – She also wrote a book on the subject.

But all of this has to take into account that the Copts were already mostly a minority populace before the 10th century – all happened during the time when they were relatively in good relations under the Abbasids (other than when there were intermittent revolts in certain districts) – much of it due to Muslim migration into Egypt which was a prosperous territory:
“Adding these results to the evidence that Arab-Muslim immigration and Coptic conversion both took place in Egypt from an early date, and to the specific attestation by al-Maqrizi that Muslims had achieved a majority in most Egyptian villages during the ninth century, we conclude that the Islamization of Egypt to the order of at least 80% was achieved well within the six centuries that elapsed from the Islamic conquest of Egypt to the Mamluk seizure of power in 1250. Several writers are of this opinion, although they all assume that Islamization was achieved mainly by conversion and ignore the factors of Arab-Muslim settlement, intermarriage, and Coptic demographic decline….The Islamization of Egypt was thus achieved by the ninth century, but the early Mamluk period may be seen as a long-delayed conclusion to it, since it gave rise to the last and most important in an intermittent series of Coptic conversion waves.”

So, were there many Copts converting due to societal pressures and fear during Mamluk times – hell yes! Was there a policy of enforced conversion – hell no! And keeping in mind this was a period of around 250 years out of the whole history of Egypt under Muslim rule – this is hardly accounts for the entire picture.

One more point; conversion continues today. Some of it is definitely due to Salafi extremist violence, but note what this Coptic priest states. He is very frustrated by the failure of the Church leadership to retain Copts against conversions to Islam or Evangelical Christianity. The estimates from within the Church are that 80-200 Copts are converting daily to Islam. Note what he says at 3:50 – this is not due to forcing or kidnapping, etc. but that the Church is losing numbers (to even other Christian strains) because it is not fulfilling the spiritual needs of the people:

By contrast, Egypt used to be 90% Christian and is now 10% Christian and 90% Muslim. Afghanistan used to be Buddhist but is now entirely Muslim.

Correct, because the vast amount of those people also peacefully converted. Were there policies in place to incentivize conversion - of course there were, Islam works that way when it is in charge. But offering someone a financial boon or promise of less social restrictions for converting is not forcing them to convert (any more than offering Muslims a tax break to abjure should be considered forcing them to convert) - except by the definition of most desperate of critics. You can review my post #65 for references, including from Copts themselves.

And your Goth example has plenty of analogy in the Muslim world. No Arab armies forced their way into West Africa; it was converted because of their elite adopting Islam and encouraging it in their people. Same thing in South East Asia (Malays, Javanese, Sumatrans, etc.) who were almost all either Hindu or Buddhist - no invading Muslim army or navy landed there. Even the Mongol Khanates accepted Islam while holding the sword over the necks of the Muslims and after having completely decimated their cities and routing their armies.

Peace.

As I’ve said before in some of our previous exchanges, I tend to agree that Muslim conquest in the case of Egypt did not result in immediate, large scale forcible conversions, or conversions by the sword. Instead, it was a gradual process over many centuries owing to the system of legal discrimination against Copts by Muslims and affirmed in your fist link:

“The Christian face of Egypt started to change by the beginning of the second millennium A.D., when Copts, in addition to the “Gezya” tax, suffered from specific disabilities, some of which were serious and interfered with their freedom of worship. For example, there were restrictions on repairing old Churches and building new ones, on testifying in court, on public behavior, on adoption, on inheritance, on public religious activities, and on dress codes. Slowly but steadily, by the end of the 12th century, the face of Egypt changed from a predominantly Christian to a predominantly Muslim country and the Coptic community occupied an inferior position and lived in some expectation of Muslim hostility, which periodically flared into violence. It is remarkable that the well-being of Copts was more or less related to the well-being of their rulers. In particular, the Copts suffered most in those periods when Arab dynasties were at their low. ”

So there were periods of peace and toleration followed by periods of Muslim hostility and intolerance towards Coptic Christians and over time this led to the diminution of their formerly large communities in Egypt. A very similar process of conversion by legal discrimination occurred after the Turkish Muslim conquest of Serbia. As an aside, in the 19th century Muslim Turk general Hurshi Pasha built a pyramid of skulls from defeated Serbian rebels to gloat over his victory and as a warning to any future Serbian upstarts.

It does appear that Islam was eagerly accepted by most of the natives in Malaysia, Indonesia, Java and Sumatra after being introduced to it by Sufi traders.

When European Christians colonized Algeria and other Muslim nations they made no attempt to convert Muslims either peacefully or forcefully. This is owing to the tolerance of the white European race and since they were primarily concerned with economic exploitation and not religious conversion of the Muslim population. If the roles were reversed things would have turned out quite differently for the Europeans as the process of reverse colonization on the European mainland is proving today.

Even the Christian crusaders of outremer made few if any attempts at converting Muslims after their initial successes reclaiming the Holy Land. And some Muslims willingly lived under Christian kings although I do believe they had to pay a poll tax similar to the Jizya.

So there were periods of peace and toleration followed by periods of Muslim hostility and intolerance towards Coptic Christians and over time this led to the diminution of their formerly large communities in Egypt

Exactly, so when times were good, the conversions were out of sincerity or to get relaxation on taxes and when times were bad, people likely converted out of fear. And the Mamluk period of intense discrimination and violence was not the norm throughout Egyptian history and simply exemplified "the last and most important in an intermittent series of Coptic conversion waves". This and the fact that lots of Muslims moved into Egypt (something they obviously wouldn't have been able to do under Byzantine control) should explain the percentages of Muslim-to-Copt pretty clearly. Read the article by Nassim Taleb which explains how Islam simply "out-stubborned" Christianity by having policies that allowed the religious trend to go only in one direction. It is simply a mathematical conclusion that if other religions are not allowed to preach to Muslims in their lands, even if Muslim numbers increase modestly by a mere .5% conversion every generation, it will lead to a Muslim majority within a certain number of centuries unless non-Muslims massively out breed them.

And it is telling that historians can see that the dhimmi relations in the Mamluk period was an aberration from Islamic norms:"Only the Ayyubids [Saladin and his successors] seemed to have managed to limit even their harshest moments to remain within the boundaries of traditional Islamic precedent, while the Mamluks seemed to have periodically allowed mob activity (rather than central policy) to carry out the harshest measures against their Christian subjects."Coptic Identity and Ayyubid Politics in Egypt 1218-1250

As an aside...

As more asides; the Timurids make the Ottomans look like cheesecakes, and Ivan tortured Tatars in full view of the gates of Kazan to make the population submit (not even talking about after he won the battle), and the British used to tie up prisoners to the fronts of cannons and blow them apart in India (Mughals also did this), and the Italians put Libyans in concentration camps, and...and...some people like playing the "atrocity tennis match" - I'd like to stick to the issues at hand.

When European Christians colonized Algeria and other Muslim nations they made no attempt to convert Muslims either peacefully or forcefully.

Correct, by the time Europeans had stopped walloping each other over heresies and finally had the wherewithal to attack Muslim lands, religion to them had been reduced to either a joke or a hobby by men like Voltaire and Hume and Rousseau. Why would you try to convert others to something your own populace doesn't take seriously or as a mythological construct?

This is owing to the tolerance of the white European race and since they were primarily concerned with economic exploitation and not religious conversion of the Muslim population.

No, this is owing to the switch of priorities as you outlined above. They were far more concerned about material than spiritual. Why would Napolean's men fight and die in Egypt and the Levant to spread Christianity? Now gold, that's another subject...It is said that the Taino chief, Hatuey, fought the Spanish on Hispaniola and escaped to warn the Cubans with these words:"As later recorded by Spanish priest Bartolomé de las Casas, Hatuey showed the Cubans a basket full of gold and jewels. “Here is the God the Spaniards worship,” he said, “for these they fight and kill; for these they persecute us and that is why we have to throw them into the sea…"

http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/oriente/hatuey.htm

They had simply found a different god - and they were not "tolerant" of those that got in their way - scorched earth policies on recalcitrant tribes in North Africa tell the tale.

Even the Christian crusaders of outremer made few if any attempts at converting Muslims after their initial successes reclaiming the Holy Land.

The Crusaders were a motley bunch; some were very noble and just and some were horrific tyrants. Some emptied out entire cities of Muslim populations (and when Muslims returned, sometimes they emptied out entire cities of the Latins). And they likely found that trying to convert Muslims is by far a lost cause as Belloc mentioned far more trouble than it is worth.

And some Muslims willingly lived under Christian kings although I do believe they had to pay a poll tax similar to the Jizya.

Yup - some of the Crusader kingdoms were fair rulers. And the reverse-jizya (which is basically loyalty and taxes) was the deal with the Tatars under the Russians as well (once they gave up on trying to forcibly convert or otherwise eradicate Islam under Empress Catherine - http://www.indiana.edu/~cahist/Readings/2010Fall/Islam_and_Modernity/Fisher_Enlightened_Despotism.pdf) and was supposed to be the same with the Moors and the Spaniards, but the Spaniards reneged and expelled them (you can read the terms of surrender here):http://voyager.dvc.edu/~mpowell/afam/surrendergranada.pdf

But that’s an important point. All the scholars, including that Dobryns fellow, agree that almost all the Amerinds killed were killed by European diseases long, long before any European settlers arrived. Maybe it was 1M or maybe 2M or maybe 4+M like that Thornton fellow argues, but Smallpox was the culprit.

I think it's pretty clear from the literature that Mooney's 1.1 million number is post disease. I.e., that number survived the initial onslaught of disease and was living in the continental US at the time of sustained settler contact. The diseases advanced even ahead of the explorers due to interactions between the tribes.

That was my point in the prior post, that Dobyn's number of 10-18 million is pre-disease and Mooney's number of 1.1 million is post-disease. That means that the 1.1 million that was reduced to 250,000 was not so reduced by disease but rather by war and intentional starvation (destroying of food sources, including the bison). Yet you continue to insist that the 1.1 million estimate is pre-disease and that disease reduced that number by 90%.

In California alone, the Native American population was about 300,000 in 1769 (again, this was post disease as we are talking about 1769, over a century after first contact), which was reduced to 250,000 in 1834 under Mexican rule. At that time the US conquered Mexico and the Native American population was reduced to 16,000 in 1900. This is a reduction of 94% of the survivors of the diseases. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Genocide

And if we are speaking about Christian European settlers generally, the numbers are vastly larger - estimates are of 70-100 million Native Americans living in all the Americas in 1492.

One can quibble over numbers but that is quibbling over trees. The forest view is absolutely clear. Native Americans were living throughout the United States. European settlers (who violently fought each other back in Europe over nothing, really, before coming to America - particularly the English, who were known for traveling the world and subjugating and colonizing anyone they ran across) came, described these natives as "savages", adopted the doctrine of "Manifest Destiny" (which entailed conquering the entire United States), followed by virtually all of the US leaders speaking about "exterminating" the natives, and after about 100 years the natives were all dead or in camps and the settlers controlled the entire land. It really can't get any more obvious.

Seriously, it cannot get more obvious.

Well, you highly recommended Thornton’s 1987 book, and on p. 32 he claims that there were something like 5M Amerinds living in the US around the time of Columbus, and earlier that virtually all the subsequent opulation-reduction was caused by disease rather than slaughter by whites, while very sharply criticizing Dobyn’s gigantic numbers. So if Thornton is correct, then Dobyns is basically more or less an incompetent crackpot. Even Thornton’s numbers seem extremely high to me.

My impression had always been that maybe 95% of all Amerind population declines had been due to European diseases and maybe 5% due to intentional white activity, and I don’t see anything in the Thornton book to contradict that. So I think I’ll stick with my previous view that the “Native American Genocide” is just an academic hoax motivated by politically-correct ideology, and leave it there. You can believe whatever you want.

Sorry? I introduced it as "the following two (random short) reads for your consideration". I use "random" sources so as not to bias the conversation with my own sources. Thornton was the first book I found in a search for Native American population history ("random").

and on p. 32 he claims that there were something like 5M Amerinds living in the US around the time of Columbus, and earlier that virtually all the subsequent opulation-reduction was caused by disease rather than slaughter by whites while very sharply criticizing Dobyn’s gigantic numbers.

That is his estimate, yes. As to criticizing Dobyn's, I'm not sure "highly" is the correct term. Dobyn used a multiplier to account for the losses from disease before more accurate counts were taken (this is why I refer to them as pre-disease numbers - by the way, this does not mean there were not more isolated outbreaks, even quite substantial ones, afterward, it just means that the firt wave of disease, which was by far the deadliest and most widespread, had not yet washed over the region). It's anyone's guess what the proper multiplier is.

My impression had always been that maybe 95% of all Amerind population declines had been due to European diseases and maybe 5% due to intentional white activity, and I don’t see anything in the Thornton book to contradict that.

I don't know about the percentages but Thornton does write that a large number of his 5 M estimate died from diseases. He also discusses deaths from war and "genocide" during the 19th century (thus focusing more on the Western US, which was less densely populated than the Eastern US) on pages 104-113 (note he considers destruction of an entire tribe, even if only numbering a few thousands, as a "genocide", which is actually entirely correct). Unfortunately his discussion for the period 1500-1800 is not available to me online, on p. 90, in his summary, he writes, the Native American population collapsed from over 5 million to 600,000 from "disease, warfare and destruction of Indian ways of life", without breaking out each category.

So I think I’ll stick with my previous view that the “Native American Genocide” is just an academic hoax motivated by politically-correct ideology, and leave it there. You can believe whatever you want.

Well if you ignore all the evidence of "intent" (and genocide is a crime of intent), and make up your own definition of "genocide" to mean - well, it's not clear at all what you think it means.

I understand your "PC" argument, but I would counter it with the observation that the "they all died of disease and otherwise were treated splendidly" view is a European supremacist/imperialist/"Divine Right" argument that views Christian Europeans as exceptional and superior, incapable of wrong-doing, the very view that led to "Manifest Destiny" and the Native American genocides in the first instance.

To generalize further, no country who has committed genocide in history, and who was the victor in whatever conflict formed the basis of it, has admitted to any genocide. Thus, according to the victors, no genocide ever happened.

Indeed, if anything, history is the process of demonizing the "enemy" and white-washing one's self.

For this reason I am more or less a nihilist in history. But as I noted, the undisputed evidence of Native American genocide is simply overwhelming. You don't deny the numerous quotes from US leaders about the desire to "exterminate" the natives, your bone of contention seems only to be whether 1 million or 5 million were exterminated intentionally by "man" versus unintentionally by "disease". My argument is that even if 100,000 were exterminated intentionally, if this was all that remained of them, then this is genocide, and second, from the actions, ideology and statements of the settlers' leaders, it is clear that they would have exterminated 50 million Natives had that many lived in the coveted land and it thus was "necessary".

It's really just a part of the liberal redefinition of language/history that we call these diseases that devastated the Amerinds "European diseases". How far back do you want to trace them? Most originated in Asia or Africa, as do most human diseases in general. Europeans never wanted the diseases, either, in their lands before they went to the New World, they got transmitted first to Europeans by Asians or Africans, and Europeans suffered from them at least as much as Amerinds in ages past before developing their level of resistance/tolerance.

Some diseases have been intentionally spread to Europeans such as the bubonic plague by Islamic Mongols- do we refer to the plague as an Asian disease? It would seem if fairness were concerned, we should, since it originated in Asia, and if we are being objectively fair we should be less concerned about hurting feelings than we do towards Europeans in America, since this was a case where it was intentionally done. How many millions died from that?

No, the reason why the plague is not called an Asian disease is because they are brown people, and we are white people. As Steve might say, "who/whom".

Well, you highly recommended Thornton's 1987 book, and on p. 32 he claims that there were something like 5M Amerinds living in the US around the time of Columbus, and earlier that virtually all the subsequent opulation-reduction was caused by disease rather than slaughter by whites, while very sharply criticizing Dobyn's gigantic numbers. So if Thornton is correct, then Dobyns is basically more or less an incompetent crackpot. Even Thornton's numbers seem extremely high to me.

My impression had always been that maybe 95% of all Amerind population declines had been due to European diseases and maybe 5% due to intentional white activity, and I don't see anything in the Thornton book to contradict that. So I think I'll stick with my previous view that the "Native American Genocide" is just an academic hoax motivated by politically-correct ideology, and leave it there. You can believe whatever you want.

Well, you highly recommended Thornton’s 1987 book

Sorry? I introduced it as “the following two (random short) reads for your consideration“. I use “random” sources so as not to bias the conversation with my own sources. Thornton was the first book I found in a search for Native American population history (“random”).

and on p. 32 he claims that there were something like 5M Amerinds living in the US around the time of Columbus, and earlier that virtually all the subsequent opulation-reduction was caused by disease rather than slaughter by whites while very sharply criticizing Dobyn’s gigantic numbers.

That is his estimate, yes. As to criticizing Dobyn’s, I’m not sure “highly” is the correct term. Dobyn used a multiplier to account for the losses from disease before more accurate counts were taken (this is why I refer to them as pre-disease numbers – by the way, this does not mean there were not more isolated outbreaks, even quite substantial ones, afterward, it just means that the firt wave of disease, which was by far the deadliest and most widespread, had not yet washed over the region). It’s anyone’s guess what the proper multiplier is.

My impression had always been that maybe 95% of all Amerind population declines had been due to European diseases and maybe 5% due to intentional white activity, and I don’t see anything in the Thornton book to contradict that.

I don’t know about the percentages but Thornton does write that a large number of his 5 M estimate died from diseases. He also discusses deaths from war and “genocide” during the 19th century (thus focusing more on the Western US, which was less densely populated than the Eastern US) on pages 104-113 (note he considers destruction of an entire tribe, even if only numbering a few thousands, as a “genocide”, which is actually entirely correct). Unfortunately his discussion for the period 1500-1800 is not available to me online, on p. 90, in his summary, he writes, the Native American population collapsed from over 5 million to 600,000 from “disease, warfare and destruction of Indian ways of life”, without breaking out each category.

So I think I’ll stick with my previous view that the “Native American Genocide” is just an academic hoax motivated by politically-correct ideology, and leave it there. You can believe whatever you want.

Well if you ignore all the evidence of “intent” (and genocide is a crime of intent), and make up your own definition of “genocide” to mean – well, it’s not clear at all what you think it means.

I understand your “PC” argument, but I would counter it with the observation that the “they all died of disease and otherwise were treated splendidly” view is a European supremacist/imperialist/”Divine Right” argument that views Christian Europeans as exceptional and superior, incapable of wrong-doing, the very view that led to “Manifest Destiny” and the Native American genocides in the first instance.

To generalize further, no country who has committed genocide in history, and who was the victor in whatever conflict formed the basis of it, has admitted to any genocide. Thus, according to the victors, no genocide ever happened.

Indeed, if anything, history is the process of demonizing the “enemy” and white-washing one’s self.

For this reason I am more or less a nihilist in history. But as I noted, the undisputed evidence of Native American genocide is simply overwhelming. You don’t deny the numerous quotes from US leaders about the desire to “exterminate” the natives, your bone of contention seems only to be whether 1 million or 5 million were exterminated intentionally by “man” versus unintentionally by “disease”. My argument is that even if 100,000 were exterminated intentionally, if this was all that remained of them, then this is genocide, and second, from the actions, ideology and statements of the settlers’ leaders, it is clear that they would have exterminated 50 million Natives had that many lived in the coveted land and it thus was “necessary”.

It's obvious you're going to go down with the ship despite the weight of the evidence being against a genocide of Amerindians that you've convinced yourself occurred by cherry picking from the historical record. Have you considered doing social work for Amerindian groups or donating half your salary to a particular tribe to atone for the sins of the past?

Let's keep it factual. While there was certainly a takeover of the ancient Christian lands, there was no policy of forced conversions or ethnic cleansing. You will find no academic work stating otherwise. A good example is what "To begin with, there was no forced conversion, no choice between “Islam and the sword.” Islamic law, following a clear Quranic principle, prohibited any such thing: dhimmis must be allowed to practice their religion. When Muslim armies encountered non-Muslims outside the lands already under the rule of Islam, they were supposed to offer them the choice of conversion to Islam; payment of jizya and acceptance of dhimmi status; or trying the fortunes of war. If the adversaries chose the last of these three and then lost, they faced expropriation, slavery, or even death. Even then, however, they must not be converted forcibly. And in fact, although there have been instances of forced conversion in Islamic history, these have been exceptional....""The larger context was an increase of tension and isolation among Christian communities that, having adopted the Arabic language among themselves, and having come to realize that the rule of Islam was definitively there to stay, found their own numbers decreasing through peaceful conversion to Islam.”Michael Bonner - Jihad in Islamic History http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8280.html

"Thus, in return for submission and the payment of the jizya, the poll tax, Islam guaranteed the people of the Book security of life, property and protection in the exercise of their religions. Dhimmis had full autonomy under the leadership of their religious chiefs. Each community exercised jurisdiction over matters of personal status, such as marriage, divorce and inheritance. So long as they submitted to the Muslim state and paid the jizya, Christians and Jews were left alone to run their own lives without interference...The jizya, which adult, sane dhimmi males paid for protection and exemption from military service, was reasonable and not oppressive...Although tolerated, protected, and many of them well-to-do, Christians and Jews were not without complaints under Islamic rule. They lived under certain legal and social disabilities. They were considered subjects, not citizens on an equal level with Muslims. Muslims were first class, dhimmis second."http://www.syriacstudies.com/2013/07/09/christians-and-jews-under-islam-najib-saliba-phd/ (Prof. Najib Saliba - Lebanese Orthodox Christian)

Copts themselves acknowledge historically that there was no forced conversion:"Copts, despite additional sumptuary laws that were imposed on them in 750-868 A.D. and 905-935 A.D. under the Abbasid Dynasties, prospered and their Church enjoyed one of its most peaceful era. Surviving literature from monastic centers, dating back from the 8th to the 11th century, shows no drastic break in the activities of Coptic craftsmen, such as weavers, leather-binders, painters, and wood-workers."

They do lament some of the later restrictions imposed on them once the Shafi'i school takes dominance..."The Christian face of Egypt started to change by the beginning of the second millennium A.D., when Copts, in addition to the "Gezya" tax, suffered from specific disabilities, some of which were serious and interfered with their freedom of worship."

http://www.coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/

Also, Nassim Taleb (Lebanese Orthodox Christian of Black Swan fame) outlines how the conversion of a society from one religion to another is easily accomplished by crunching numbers over the centuries - requires little violence - just certain simple forward-thinking policies; no preaching of another religion to Muslims and marriage to female People of the Book, but not the other way around.

Read the section THE ONE-WAY STREET OF RELIGIONShttp://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/minority.pdf

While I think the numbers you state for the massacres is on the high side - I've seen more reliable numbers at half of those (unless you've got some reliable academic sources to back you up), there is little doubt that the Ottoman Empire went hyper-violent in its latest stage when it was taken over by nationalist Turks and was losing war after war and territory after territory. It was as you stated: Planned, organized, executed mass-murder: Genocide.

Professor Solomon Nigosian, is an excellent historian and minister in the Armenian Evangelical Church (http://library.vicu.utoronto.ca/collections/special_collections/f43_solomon_alexander_nigosian)

Has written a very balanced book on Islam and Islamic history (the good and the bad of it) - he states nothing about forced conversions and clears up a lot of nonsense pinned on Islam. If you won't listen to anyone other than an Armenian on the subject, then it is highly recommended read:https://www.amazon.com/Islam-Its-History-Teaching-Practices/dp/0253216273/

Peace.

Talha,

Hugh Kennedy says that the response of the Copts in Egypt to the Muslims was varied. I get the impression that he thinks the issue should be re-visited. They were being persecuted by the Byzantine church so it is reasonable to believe that they could have seen the invasion as an opportunity rather than a disaster. An amateur such as myself would look to see if there are sources that tell us of their status and welfare in the immediate years after the conquest. Apparently there are plenty of reliable sources that say that in many instances the Copts cooperated and aided the invasion.

they could have seen the invasion as an opportunity rather than a disaster

They saw it as both as is recorded by their own historians. I believe George an Archdeacon is one of the closest contemporary sources on the matter from their side - one or two generations after events. Anyway, they saw the Muslims as another change of historical masters - and heathen (or heretical) ones at that - so that's never fun. But they did appreciate that their church leaders would no longer be oppressed (or tortured). He mentions that Amr ibn al-As (ra) allowed the Coptic Patriarch, Benjamin, back into Alexandria who was exiled by the Byzantines. Amr (ra) then proceeds to tell him something along the lines of - we're now going to go kick some more Roman butt up and down North Africa, so pray for us...and he praised Amr (ra) and prayed for his success.
The Coptic Papacy in Islamic Egypt

As a side note, the horrendous Byzantine policy with regards to other denominations comes in play later at the historic battle of Manzikert (and their subsequent loss of Anatolia) which was not just a failure on the battlefield but a culmination of short-sighted policies with regards to the Muslims and Christians of their frontier lands - the results were almost mathematically determined to go as they did.

Well, under that very silly definition, the world has seen an *awful* lot of genocides.

It sure has, but I don't see what's silly about it. What's silly perhaps is that you make genocide out to be something it's not. Take a related word, "war crime". A war crime can consist of killing 30 million civilians, or of humiliating one captured soldier on TV. I think part of the problem is, largely due to the holohoax industry, many people have been conditioned to think all genocide is the worst thing imaginable. It can be but does not have to be.

That said, I do think what happened to the Native Americans is a terrible crime. On the other hand I also recognize that, given human nature, it was inevitable that the Native Americans' way of life would end - they simply did not make "adequate use" of their land. Incidentally, the same can be said about modern-day Russia. However, unlike the Native Americans, the Russians have the military technology to defend themselves and their "overabundance" of land. If they didn't, I assume it would be fine for Europeans to go in there and settle where they want, and if the locals (Russians) object, to just start killing them all.

And if Americans continue to object to the Mexican settlers, currently entering the country, it's fair game for the "illegals" to apply "pressure" to stop the locals from "being racist" by, well, killing all of those who object and placing the rest in internment camps. It's a Coke/Pepsi thing.

the Amerinds were pressured into wearing clothes and living in houses and becoming Christians

Pressured? Really? Wow, that's truly cruel. Even if "only" 1 million Native Americans were killed, that's still 333 9/11s. So 9/11, assuming the official story is accurate, was just a small diplomatic effort at requesting politely that the US change its Middle East policy, eh?

Cheers

“And if Americans continue to object to the Mexican settlers, currently entering the country, it’s fair game for the “illegals” to apply “pressure” to stop the locals from “being racist” by, well, killing all of those who object and placing the rest in internment camps. It’s a Coke/Pepsi thing.”

All the more reason for us to vote for Trump, pressure our representatives to drop amnesty, push for restricting/reducing welfare, etc.

If illegals did start to actually believe killing us en masse was a good idea, it clearly would work out very badly for them- we have a helluva lot more people and firepower (not to mention being more clever, better educated, etc.).

Of course. I was making an analogy in the hope that some people might be able to get over certain mental blocks they may have. More precisely, my analogy was: Americans opposed to Mexican settlement of the US is equivalent to Native Americans opposed to European settlement in the 1600s on. By the same token, Native Americans trying to physically prevent Europeans from settling is equivalent to a border guard today trying to prevent a Mexican from settling. By the same token, if the European settlers had the right to kill Native Americans who opposed their settlement, than the Mexican settler today has the right to kill the border guard who opposes his settlement.

People tend to think in an "us" vs "them" mentality, which is an intellectual prejudice/filter that often interferes with a proper understanding of reality. Thus in the Native American case the person will identify with the settlers and think, yeah, I have the right to settle that land; but if you bring up the current situation, the same person will identify with the border guard and think, yeah, we have the right to prevent them from settling the land.

Well, you highly recommended Thornton's 1987 book, and on p. 32 he claims that there were something like 5M Amerinds living in the US around the time of Columbus, and earlier that virtually all the subsequent opulation-reduction was caused by disease rather than slaughter by whites, while very sharply criticizing Dobyn's gigantic numbers. So if Thornton is correct, then Dobyns is basically more or less an incompetent crackpot. Even Thornton's numbers seem extremely high to me.

My impression had always been that maybe 95% of all Amerind population declines had been due to European diseases and maybe 5% due to intentional white activity, and I don't see anything in the Thornton book to contradict that. So I think I'll stick with my previous view that the "Native American Genocide" is just an academic hoax motivated by politically-correct ideology, and leave it there. You can believe whatever you want.

It’s really just a part of the liberal redefinition of language/history that we call these diseases that devastated the Amerinds “European diseases”. How far back do you want to trace them? Most originated in Asia or Africa, as do most human diseases in general. Europeans never wanted the diseases, either, in their lands before they went to the New World, they got transmitted first to Europeans by Asians or Africans, and Europeans suffered from them at least as much as Amerinds in ages past before developing their level of resistance/tolerance.

Some diseases have been intentionally spread to Europeans such as the bubonic plague by Islamic Mongols- do we refer to the plague as an Asian disease? It would seem if fairness were concerned, we should, since it originated in Asia, and if we are being objectively fair we should be less concerned about hurting feelings than we do towards Europeans in America, since this was a case where it was intentionally done. How many millions died from that?

No, the reason why the plague is not called an Asian disease is because they are brown people, and we are white people. As Steve might say, “who/whom”.

It’s really just a part of the liberal redefinition of language/history that we call these diseases that devastated the Amerinds “European diseases”.

I would think they are often referred to that as they were brought to the Americas by European settlers/invaders.

Some diseases have been intentionally spread to Europeans such as the bubonic plague by Islamic Mongols

The black plague likely originated in Mongolia so it might be appropriate to call it a Mongolian disease but the connection to Islam entirely escapes any rational mind. The claim of it being spread intentionally is utter rubbish.

As to why it is not called the Mongolian plague I do not have the answer, except to say, it is not clear how the plague spread to Europe. The best theory is that it traveled along the Silk Road, in which event the merchants who spread the disease could have been of "Christian European" (lol) or any other origin. There is also a theory that at least one wave was spread by the Chinese navy.

So, what we have is one situation where it is clear that a number of Europeans traveling to the Americans brought with them a number of diseases, and another situation where it is even today (despite extensive genetic testing) not clear how the disease spread or who spread it.

And why are you - IslamoFascist ingrate parasite - originally from Islamistan Pakistan, still squatting in that Canadian-bacon pig farm? Mooching off of benevolent Canadian Christians, you IslamoFascist parasite?

If Islam is so great, why don't you go back to Pakistan, you anti-Christian, ingrate, bigot, IslamoFascist parasite?

The world is a much better place to live in since ww2. The nazis were a bunch a jalous pigs who tried to steal kabbalistic wisdom from it’s rightfull sages, they didnt just want to exterminate jews, they wanted our occult knowledge.

This only brought pain and suffering to mankind. A bunch of kid playing with matches and gazoline…

And about those expelled jewish communities: didnt that happen during the middle ages? Oh yeah, that was a really good era to live in! Riiighhht…

The Vatican is certainly a very nice institution, that always treated people fairly, and not a bunch of greedy old f*cks… Riiiight…

As it ever occured to you that perhaps these countries didnt only expel jews for beautiful romantic reasons… You know, were talking about peoples who were burning witches…

Your life will be much more enjoyable once you stop being a jalous moron and you stop biting the hand that feeds you.

By the way: linking to your own blog to prove your point is quite pathetic

Sorry? I introduced it as "the following two (random short) reads for your consideration". I use "random" sources so as not to bias the conversation with my own sources. Thornton was the first book I found in a search for Native American population history ("random").

and on p. 32 he claims that there were something like 5M Amerinds living in the US around the time of Columbus, and earlier that virtually all the subsequent opulation-reduction was caused by disease rather than slaughter by whites while very sharply criticizing Dobyn’s gigantic numbers.

That is his estimate, yes. As to criticizing Dobyn's, I'm not sure "highly" is the correct term. Dobyn used a multiplier to account for the losses from disease before more accurate counts were taken (this is why I refer to them as pre-disease numbers - by the way, this does not mean there were not more isolated outbreaks, even quite substantial ones, afterward, it just means that the firt wave of disease, which was by far the deadliest and most widespread, had not yet washed over the region). It's anyone's guess what the proper multiplier is.

My impression had always been that maybe 95% of all Amerind population declines had been due to European diseases and maybe 5% due to intentional white activity, and I don’t see anything in the Thornton book to contradict that.

I don't know about the percentages but Thornton does write that a large number of his 5 M estimate died from diseases. He also discusses deaths from war and "genocide" during the 19th century (thus focusing more on the Western US, which was less densely populated than the Eastern US) on pages 104-113 (note he considers destruction of an entire tribe, even if only numbering a few thousands, as a "genocide", which is actually entirely correct). Unfortunately his discussion for the period 1500-1800 is not available to me online, on p. 90, in his summary, he writes, the Native American population collapsed from over 5 million to 600,000 from "disease, warfare and destruction of Indian ways of life", without breaking out each category.

So I think I’ll stick with my previous view that the “Native American Genocide” is just an academic hoax motivated by politically-correct ideology, and leave it there. You can believe whatever you want.

Well if you ignore all the evidence of "intent" (and genocide is a crime of intent), and make up your own definition of "genocide" to mean - well, it's not clear at all what you think it means.

I understand your "PC" argument, but I would counter it with the observation that the "they all died of disease and otherwise were treated splendidly" view is a European supremacist/imperialist/"Divine Right" argument that views Christian Europeans as exceptional and superior, incapable of wrong-doing, the very view that led to "Manifest Destiny" and the Native American genocides in the first instance.

To generalize further, no country who has committed genocide in history, and who was the victor in whatever conflict formed the basis of it, has admitted to any genocide. Thus, according to the victors, no genocide ever happened.

Indeed, if anything, history is the process of demonizing the "enemy" and white-washing one's self.

For this reason I am more or less a nihilist in history. But as I noted, the undisputed evidence of Native American genocide is simply overwhelming. You don't deny the numerous quotes from US leaders about the desire to "exterminate" the natives, your bone of contention seems only to be whether 1 million or 5 million were exterminated intentionally by "man" versus unintentionally by "disease". My argument is that even if 100,000 were exterminated intentionally, if this was all that remained of them, then this is genocide, and second, from the actions, ideology and statements of the settlers' leaders, it is clear that they would have exterminated 50 million Natives had that many lived in the coveted land and it thus was "necessary".

It’s obvious you’re going to go down with the ship despite the weight of the evidence being against a genocide of Amerindians that you’ve convinced yourself occurred by cherry picking from the historical record. Have you considered doing social work for Amerindian groups or donating half your salary to a particular tribe to atone for the sins of the past?

The evidence is actually completely on my side. unlike you I am just not a White supremacist who for ideological reasons refuses to accept the evidence. I am also a lawyer and am able to understand legal definitions of crimes and evidence which does or does not support it. Even the undisputed evidence makes an incontrovertible case for genocide, the only debate is about how large it was (hundreds of thousands or millions).

Once again, your comment is utterly stupid and worthless and that is the reason I did not reply to your earlier comment which was a whole big long stupid and worthless.

It's really just a part of the liberal redefinition of language/history that we call these diseases that devastated the Amerinds "European diseases". How far back do you want to trace them? Most originated in Asia or Africa, as do most human diseases in general. Europeans never wanted the diseases, either, in their lands before they went to the New World, they got transmitted first to Europeans by Asians or Africans, and Europeans suffered from them at least as much as Amerinds in ages past before developing their level of resistance/tolerance.

Some diseases have been intentionally spread to Europeans such as the bubonic plague by Islamic Mongols- do we refer to the plague as an Asian disease? It would seem if fairness were concerned, we should, since it originated in Asia, and if we are being objectively fair we should be less concerned about hurting feelings than we do towards Europeans in America, since this was a case where it was intentionally done. How many millions died from that?

No, the reason why the plague is not called an Asian disease is because they are brown people, and we are white people. As Steve might say, "who/whom".

It’s really just a part of the liberal redefinition of language/history that we call these diseases that devastated the Amerinds “European diseases”.

I would think they are often referred to that as they were brought to the Americas by European settlers/invaders.

Some diseases have been intentionally spread to Europeans such as the bubonic plague by Islamic Mongols

The black plague likely originated in Mongolia so it might be appropriate to call it a Mongolian disease but the connection to Islam entirely escapes any rational mind. The claim of it being spread intentionally is utter rubbish.

As to why it is not called the Mongolian plague I do not have the answer, except to say, it is not clear how the plague spread to Europe. The best theory is that it traveled along the Silk Road, in which event the merchants who spread the disease could have been of “Christian European” (lol) or any other origin. There is also a theory that at least one wave was spread by the Chinese navy.

So, what we have is one situation where it is clear that a number of Europeans traveling to the Americans brought with them a number of diseases, and another situation where it is even today (despite extensive genetic testing) not clear how the disease spread or who spread it.

"The black plague likely originated in Mongolia so it might be appropriate to call it a Mongolian disease but the connection to Islam entirely escapes any rational mind. The claim of it being spread intentionally is utter rubbish."

Both statements (connection to Islam, and spread by Mongols intentionally) I wrote were true.

It's obvious you're going to go down with the ship despite the weight of the evidence being against a genocide of Amerindians that you've convinced yourself occurred by cherry picking from the historical record. Have you considered doing social work for Amerindian groups or donating half your salary to a particular tribe to atone for the sins of the past?

The evidence is actually completely on my side. unlike you I am just not a White supremacist who for ideological reasons refuses to accept the evidence. I am also a lawyer and am able to understand legal definitions of crimes and evidence which does or does not support it. Even the undisputed evidence makes an incontrovertible case for genocide, the only debate is about how large it was (hundreds of thousands or millions).

Once again, your comment is utterly stupid and worthless and that is the reason I did not reply to your earlier comment which was a whole big long stupid and worthless.

Like touting your supposed credentials will change the fact that you lost the debate. Even Ron Unz skillfully used your own sources against you. If you are a lawyer then you utterly failed to prove your case. All you've done is spin and embellish the historical record to comport with your own anti-white and left wing ideological biases and arrive at a pre-determined conclusion.

Frankly, I could care less whether you responded or not but the facts I cited are unassailable and any attempted rebuttal on your part would just make you look even more unhinged and desperate.

"And if Americans continue to object to the Mexican settlers, currently entering the country, it’s fair game for the “illegals” to apply “pressure” to stop the locals from “being racist” by, well, killing all of those who object and placing the rest in internment camps. It’s a Coke/Pepsi thing."

All the more reason for us to vote for Trump, pressure our representatives to drop amnesty, push for restricting/reducing welfare, etc.

If illegals did start to actually believe killing us en masse was a good idea, it clearly would work out very badly for them- we have a helluva lot more people and firepower (not to mention being more clever, better educated, etc.).

Of course. I was making an analogy in the hope that some people might be able to get over certain mental blocks they may have. More precisely, my analogy was: Americans opposed to Mexican settlement of the US is equivalent to Native Americans opposed to European settlement in the 1600s on. By the same token, Native Americans trying to physically prevent Europeans from settling is equivalent to a border guard today trying to prevent a Mexican from settling. By the same token, if the European settlers had the right to kill Native Americans who opposed their settlement, than the Mexican settler today has the right to kill the border guard who opposes his settlement.

People tend to think in an “us” vs “them” mentality, which is an intellectual prejudice/filter that often interferes with a proper understanding of reality. Thus in the Native American case the person will identify with the settlers and think, yeah, I have the right to settle that land; but if you bring up the current situation, the same person will identify with the border guard and think, yeah, we have the right to prevent them from settling the land.

People tend to think in an “us” vs “them” mentality, which is an intellectual prejudice/filter that often interferes with a proper understanding of reality.

Us vs them is reality. It is a part of human nature. I would say that more than any other trait, us vs them has made humans what we are.

People who accept the concept of a nation state do not have “mental blocs” and can have a “proper” understanding of reality as well as the next person does.

Peoples, acting on us vs them, have been, from time immemorial, and are continuing to take land and resources from each other. You seem to object to this, but you have not provided us with an authority or principle above and beyond these facts to support your objection.

The evidence is actually completely on my side. unlike you I am just not a White supremacist who for ideological reasons refuses to accept the evidence. I am also a lawyer and am able to understand legal definitions of crimes and evidence which does or does not support it. Even the undisputed evidence makes an incontrovertible case for genocide, the only debate is about how large it was (hundreds of thousands or millions).

Once again, your comment is utterly stupid and worthless and that is the reason I did not reply to your earlier comment which was a whole big long stupid and worthless.

Cheers

Like touting your supposed credentials will change the fact that you lost the debate. Even Ron Unz skillfully used your own sources against you. If you are a lawyer then you utterly failed to prove your case. All you’ve done is spin and embellish the historical record to comport with your own anti-white and left wing ideological biases and arrive at a pre-determined conclusion.

Frankly, I could care less whether you responded or not but the facts I cited are unassailable and any attempted rebuttal on your part would just make you look even more unhinged and desperate.

Of course. I was making an analogy in the hope that some people might be able to get over certain mental blocks they may have. More precisely, my analogy was: Americans opposed to Mexican settlement of the US is equivalent to Native Americans opposed to European settlement in the 1600s on. By the same token, Native Americans trying to physically prevent Europeans from settling is equivalent to a border guard today trying to prevent a Mexican from settling. By the same token, if the European settlers had the right to kill Native Americans who opposed their settlement, than the Mexican settler today has the right to kill the border guard who opposes his settlement.

People tend to think in an "us" vs "them" mentality, which is an intellectual prejudice/filter that often interferes with a proper understanding of reality. Thus in the Native American case the person will identify with the settlers and think, yeah, I have the right to settle that land; but if you bring up the current situation, the same person will identify with the border guard and think, yeah, we have the right to prevent them from settling the land.

People tend to think in an “us” vs “them” mentality, which is an intellectual prejudice/filter that often interferes with a proper understanding of reality.

Us vs them is reality. It is a part of human nature. I would say that more than any other trait, us vs them has made humans what we are.

People who accept the concept of a nation state do not have “mental blocs” and can have a “proper” understanding of reality as well as the next person does.

Peoples, acting on us vs them, have been, from time immemorial, and are continuing to take land and resources from each other. You seem to object to this, but you have not provided us with an authority or principle above and beyond these facts to support your objection.

People tend to think in an “us” vs “them” mentality, which is an intellectual prejudice/filter that often interferes with a proper understanding of reality.

...

People who accept the concept of a nation state do not have “mental blocs” and can have a “proper” understanding of reality as well as the next person does.

Exactly, my only claim is it "often" interferes with judgment, just like any other stereotype or prejudice. On the other hand I realize stereotypes and prejudices are necessary for the brain to make sense of the complex world. Hence the importance of critical thinking and challenging one's conclusions and premises.

Peoples, acting on us vs them, have been, from time immemorial, and are continuing to take land and resources from each other. You seem to object to this, but you have not provided us with an authority or principle above and beyond these facts to support your objection.

You might remember that the UN was created, and the idea of beggaring they neighbor was explicitly made unlawful under international law, because the modern technology made war "unthinkable". And again we see, today, a fundamental threat to humanity because the "American exceptionalists" are traversing the globe sowing death, destruction and misery in the name of "democracy", much as earlier conquerors may have used the name of Marx or Jesus or Mohammed or whatever else was the dominant orthodoxy of the day.

But my objection goes beyond the fact that this will inevitably lead to WW III (which would be a massive negative outcome even for the irredeemable aggressors, the "West"/NATO). I also think it is completely unnecessary for the common man. When the US destroys Iraq, Syria, Libya and other places, it brings absolutely no benefit to me; the only benefit is gained by a small subset of the rulers, who profit in various ways off war and conquest. Why should I support a policy which yields a substantial risk of nuclear annihilation and my upside is non-existent? When I eliminate my hateful, Islamophobic "us" vs "them" mentality which is being fomented by our rulers to justify their aggression, I can see this clearly and act in my self-interest.

On a moral level I do not believe in supremacism, whether it is racial ("White supremacism"), religious ("radical Islam"), ethnic ("Zionism"), or political ("American exceptionalism"). Whatever the basis it is evil in that it causes suffering to others and reckless in that it risks human annihilation. I believe in "separate but equal". People living together in harmony and with mutual respect do not start wars, particularly nuclear wars.

On a related note, I think the rulers are currently fomenting nationalism and other hatreds (particularly Islamophobia, which is off the charts in the "West" even though, on an objective level, in the current time period (last few decades, i.e., living memory for most people), Muslims have killed a tiny fraction of the number of "Westerners" as "Westerners" have killed Muslims) because they are setting the table for WW III. I think WW III will be extremely bloody and a large majority of humanity will perish. I also think the global rulers who are currently fomenting extreme nationalism and religious intolerance (including radical Islam throughout the world, which is fomented by the very same people who are fomenting Islamophobia in the "West" and elsewhere) will then blame this war on nationalism and religion in a quest to destroy both and usher in their global (totalitarian) government.

In other words, the irony for me is, those people who claim to be pro-nation state and anti-globalist (anti global government), but who are Islamophobic (amongst other hatreds), are actually the "useful idiots" who will bring about the exact opposite of what they want. All because they are incapable of looking beyond a very primitive, primordial "us" vs "them" mentality.

"You are a lovely woman, a good writer, but at some time you have to face the fact that Jewish bureaucrats and operators invented the invite the world policy (who wrote the Ellis Island doggerel?), and many decades later came up with, as Mr. Sailer says, the recent ‘Invade the world, invite the world’ ideas, as neocons."

The "invite the world/invade the world" policy was created by Europeans, which included the Jews, when they, like other groups from around the world, chose to engage in colonial and imperial practices.

Colonization and imperialism by Europeans in the 1400 and 1500's, with an emphasis on saving souls, combined with immigration from Europe to the Americas, were the triggers to "invade the world/invite the world". Indeed, study your history.

Hugh Kennedy says that the response of the Copts in Egypt to the Muslims was varied. I get the impression that he thinks the issue should be re-visited. They were being persecuted by the Byzantine church so it is reasonable to believe that they could have seen the invasion as an opportunity rather than a disaster. An amateur such as myself would look to see if there are sources that tell us of their status and welfare in the immediate years after the conquest. Apparently there are plenty of reliable sources that say that in many instances the Copts cooperated and aided the invasion.

Hey iffen,

they could have seen the invasion as an opportunity rather than a disaster

They saw it as both as is recorded by their own historians. I believe George an Archdeacon is one of the closest contemporary sources on the matter from their side – one or two generations after events. Anyway, they saw the Muslims as another change of historical masters – and heathen (or heretical) ones at that – so that’s never fun. But they did appreciate that their church leaders would no longer be oppressed (or tortured). He mentions that Amr ibn al-As (ra) allowed the Coptic Patriarch, Benjamin, back into Alexandria who was exiled by the Byzantines. Amr (ra) then proceeds to tell him something along the lines of – we’re now going to go kick some more Roman butt up and down North Africa, so pray for us…and he praised Amr (ra) and prayed for his success.The Coptic Papacy in Islamic Egypt

As a side note, the horrendous Byzantine policy with regards to other denominations comes in play later at the historic battle of Manzikert (and their subsequent loss of Anatolia) which was not just a failure on the battlefield but a culmination of short-sighted policies with regards to the Muslims and Christians of their frontier lands – the results were almost mathematically determined to go as they did.

As I've said before in some of our previous exchanges, I tend to agree that Muslim conquest in the case of Egypt did not result in immediate, large scale forcible conversions, or conversions by the sword. Instead, it was a gradual process over many centuries owing to the system of legal discrimination against Copts by Muslims and affirmed in your fist link:

"The Christian face of Egypt started to change by the beginning of the second millennium A.D., when Copts, in addition to the "Gezya" tax, suffered from specific disabilities, some of which were serious and interfered with their freedom of worship. For example, there were restrictions on repairing old Churches and building new ones, on testifying in court, on public behavior, on adoption, on inheritance, on public religious activities, and on dress codes. Slowly but steadily, by the end of the 12th century, the face of Egypt changed from a predominantly Christian to a predominantly Muslim country and the Coptic community occupied an inferior position and lived in some expectation of Muslim hostility, which periodically flared into violence. It is remarkable that the well-being of Copts was more or less related to the well-being of their rulers. In particular, the Copts suffered most in those periods when Arab dynasties were at their low. "

So there were periods of peace and toleration followed by periods of Muslim hostility and intolerance towards Coptic Christians and over time this led to the diminution of their formerly large communities in Egypt. A very similar process of conversion by legal discrimination occurred after the Turkish Muslim conquest of Serbia. As an aside, in the 19th century Muslim Turk general Hurshi Pasha built a pyramid of skulls from defeated Serbian rebels to gloat over his victory and as a warning to any future Serbian upstarts.

http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/skull-tower-nis

It does appear that Islam was eagerly accepted by most of the natives in Malaysia, Indonesia, Java and Sumatra after being introduced to it by Sufi traders.

When European Christians colonized Algeria and other Muslim nations they made no attempt to convert Muslims either peacefully or forcefully. This is owing to the tolerance of the white European race and since they were primarily concerned with economic exploitation and not religious conversion of the Muslim population. If the roles were reversed things would have turned out quite differently for the Europeans as the process of reverse colonization on the European mainland is proving today.

Even the Christian crusaders of outremer made few if any attempts at converting Muslims after their initial successes reclaiming the Holy Land. And some Muslims willingly lived under Christian kings although I do believe they had to pay a poll tax similar to the Jizya.

Hey KenH,

See the notes on my post #92.

So there were periods of peace and toleration followed by periods of Muslim hostility and intolerance towards Coptic Christians and over time this led to the diminution of their formerly large communities in Egypt

Exactly, so when times were good, the conversions were out of sincerity or to get relaxation on taxes and when times were bad, people likely converted out of fear. And the Mamluk period of intense discrimination and violence was not the norm throughout Egyptian history and simply exemplified “the last and most important in an intermittent series of Coptic conversion waves”. This and the fact that lots of Muslims moved into Egypt (something they obviously wouldn’t have been able to do under Byzantine control) should explain the percentages of Muslim-to-Copt pretty clearly. Read the article by Nassim Taleb which explains how Islam simply “out-stubborned” Christianity by having policies that allowed the religious trend to go only in one direction. It is simply a mathematical conclusion that if other religions are not allowed to preach to Muslims in their lands, even if Muslim numbers increase modestly by a mere .5% conversion every generation, it will lead to a Muslim majority within a certain number of centuries unless non-Muslims massively out breed them.

And it is telling that historians can see that the dhimmi relations in the Mamluk period was an aberration from Islamic norms:
“Only the Ayyubids [Saladin and his successors] seemed to have managed to limit even their harshest moments to remain within the boundaries of traditional Islamic precedent, while the Mamluks seemed to have periodically allowed mob activity (rather than central policy) to carry out the harshest measures against their Christian subjects.”Coptic Identity and Ayyubid Politics in Egypt 1218-1250

As an aside…

As more asides; the Timurids make the Ottomans look like cheesecakes, and Ivan tortured Tatars in full view of the gates of Kazan to make the population submit (not even talking about after he won the battle), and the British used to tie up prisoners to the fronts of cannons and blow them apart in India (Mughals also did this), and the Italians put Libyans in concentration camps, and…and…some people like playing the “atrocity tennis match” – I’d like to stick to the issues at hand.

When European Christians colonized Algeria and other Muslim nations they made no attempt to convert Muslims either peacefully or forcefully.

Correct, by the time Europeans had stopped walloping each other over heresies and finally had the wherewithal to attack Muslim lands, religion to them had been reduced to either a joke or a hobby by men like Voltaire and Hume and Rousseau. Why would you try to convert others to something your own populace doesn’t take seriously or as a mythological construct?

This is owing to the tolerance of the white European race and since they were primarily concerned with economic exploitation and not religious conversion of the Muslim population.

No, this is owing to the switch of priorities as you outlined above. They were far more concerned about material than spiritual. Why would Napolean’s men fight and die in Egypt and the Levant to spread Christianity? Now gold, that’s another subject…
It is said that the Taino chief, Hatuey, fought the Spanish on Hispaniola and escaped to warn the Cubans with these words:
“As later recorded by Spanish priest Bartolomé de las Casas, Hatuey showed the Cubans a basket full of gold and jewels. “Here is the God the Spaniards worship,” he said, “for these they fight and kill; for these they persecute us and that is why we have to throw them into the sea…”

They had simply found a different god – and they were not “tolerant” of those that got in their way – scorched earth policies on recalcitrant tribes in North Africa tell the tale.

Even the Christian crusaders of outremer made few if any attempts at converting Muslims after their initial successes reclaiming the Holy Land.

The Crusaders were a motley bunch; some were very noble and just and some were horrific tyrants. Some emptied out entire cities of Muslim populations (and when Muslims returned, sometimes they emptied out entire cities of the Latins). And they likely found that trying to convert Muslims is by far a lost cause as Belloc mentioned far more trouble than it is worth.

And some Muslims willingly lived under Christian kings although I do believe they had to pay a poll tax similar to the Jizya.

Yup – some of the Crusader kingdoms were fair rulers. And the reverse-jizya (which is basically loyalty and taxes) was the deal with the Tatars under the Russians as well (once they gave up on trying to forcibly convert or otherwise eradicate Islam under Empress Catherine – http://www.indiana.edu/~cahist/Readings/2010Fall/Islam_and_Modernity/Fisher_Enlightened_Despotism.pdf) and was supposed to be the same with the Moors and the Spaniards, but the Spaniards reneged and expelled them (you can read the terms of surrender here):

Exactly, so when times were good, the conversions were out of sincerity or to get relaxation on taxes and when times were bad, people likely converted out of fear.

Well, yes and no. This doesn't change the fact that even in the "good" times Copts often occupied a lower legal plane than Muslims and their upward social mobility was limited. This system was designed to encourage conversions and and did just that over a period of time. No doubt there were willing conversions (not forced) immediately following the Muslim conquest as some Copts were not happy with the Orthodox Church in Constantinople and figured the grass was greener (so to speak) with Islam and/or found the doctrines of Islam simpler and more palatable.

Today we seem to be entering into another phase of repression of the Egyptian Copts given the well publicized beheadings on the beach in 2015, destruction of some of their churches and kidnappings and rape of Coptic women by Muslims.

And the Mamluk period of intense discrimination and violence was not the norm throughout Egyptian history and simply exemplified “

Possibly not. In Lothrop Stoddard's book New World Of Islam he credits the Turkish influence (Seljuk, Mamluke, Ottoman) to much of the atrocities and bad press associated with Islam. I've been unable to finish the book because I keep misplacing it. But Wahabbism and all the unrest and violence it's created is a Bedouin-Arab phenomenon which has become a menace once again with the rise if ISIS and their sympathizers throughout the Middle East and the entire Muslim world.

.....and the British used to tie up prisoners to the fronts of cannons and blow them apart in India (Mughals also did this), and the Italians put Libyans in concentration camps, and…and…some people like playing the “atrocity tennis match” – I’d like to stick to the issues at hand.

The Brits didn't do it to prisoners or simply for sport. The only instance in which they did this was after suppressing the Sepoy mutiny where both Hindu and Muslim Sepoys had assassinated some British officers and their families usually while they were sleeping. The numbers killed in this fashion was around 400 max. When the English colonists revolted against the British Crown they did so by attacking armed British soldiers not murdering the officers and their families while they slept. Context is everything.

This is not to say that Europeans are incapable of committing atrocities. Immediately after they took Jerusalem, the crusaders slaughtered many Muslims, including women and children, after they surrendered and volunteered to leave the city. Some crusaders attacked and killed Jews on their way to the holy land. Or when the Romans attacked Carthage, slew all the men, razed it to the ground and sold the surviving women and children into slavery. The European Thirty Years War between Protestant and Catholic makes ISIS look restrained but in another 25 years we'll see.

....and the Italians put Libyans in concentration camps

Yes, not good, but it had nothing to do with persecuting Muslims over their religious beliefs. Italy also agreed to pay 5 billion dollars in compensation and reparations in 2008. Turkey has yet to pay reparations to central Europeans, Romanians and Hungarians for the invasion, death and destruction they wrought from the 15th through the 18th centuries?

“As later recorded by Spanish priest Bartolomé de las Casas, Hatuey showed the Cubans a basket full of gold and jewels. “Here is the God the Spaniards worship,” he said, “for these they fight and kill; for these they persecute us and that is why we have to throw them into the sea…”

Of the conquistadors lust for wealth and gold I have no doubt, but Muslim rulers throughout history didn't exactly eschew gold and wealth. It was none other than the prophet Muhammed and the first Muslims who raided caravans and stole possessions of Meccans. Likewise, Muslims robbing Christian pilgrims of their possessions and sometimes killing them in the holy land was one reason for the Crusades. And the Saudi royal family, with it's ostentatious displays of obscene wealth, make the Spanish conquistadors look like the Beverly Hillbillies. So some Muslims also worship the golden calf right alongside their otherwordly deity.

Spaniards reneged and expelled them (you can read the terms of surrender here):

After a good faith attempt to reach an accord with the remaining Moorish population things didn't seem to be working out as hoped. That is because even after forced conversion of many Moors to Christianity there was still lingering ethnic tension among the old Spanish Christians and Moriscos (just as there had been with conversos, or converted Jews) and the Spanish rulers viewed the Moriscos as a fifth column within the Spanish nation.

People tend to think in an “us” vs “them” mentality, which is an intellectual prejudice/filter that often interferes with a proper understanding of reality.

Us vs them is reality. It is a part of human nature. I would say that more than any other trait, us vs them has made humans what we are.

People who accept the concept of a nation state do not have “mental blocs” and can have a “proper” understanding of reality as well as the next person does.

Peoples, acting on us vs them, have been, from time immemorial, and are continuing to take land and resources from each other. You seem to object to this, but you have not provided us with an authority or principle above and beyond these facts to support your objection.

People tend to think in an “us” vs “them” mentality, which is an intellectual prejudice/filter that often interferes with a proper understanding of reality.

…

People who accept the concept of a nation state do not have “mental blocs” and can have a “proper” understanding of reality as well as the next person does.

Exactly, my only claim is it “often” interferes with judgment, just like any other stereotype or prejudice. On the other hand I realize stereotypes and prejudices are necessary for the brain to make sense of the complex world. Hence the importance of critical thinking and challenging one’s conclusions and premises.

Peoples, acting on us vs them, have been, from time immemorial, and are continuing to take land and resources from each other. You seem to object to this, but you have not provided us with an authority or principle above and beyond these facts to support your objection.

You might remember that the UN was created, and the idea of beggaring they neighbor was explicitly made unlawful under international law, because the modern technology made war “unthinkable”. And again we see, today, a fundamental threat to humanity because the “American exceptionalists” are traversing the globe sowing death, destruction and misery in the name of “democracy”, much as earlier conquerors may have used the name of Marx or Jesus or Mohammed or whatever else was the dominant orthodoxy of the day.

But my objection goes beyond the fact that this will inevitably lead to WW III (which would be a massive negative outcome even for the irredeemable aggressors, the “West”/NATO). I also think it is completely unnecessary for the common man. When the US destroys Iraq, Syria, Libya and other places, it brings absolutely no benefit to me; the only benefit is gained by a small subset of the rulers, who profit in various ways off war and conquest. Why should I support a policy which yields a substantial risk of nuclear annihilation and my upside is non-existent? When I eliminate my hateful, Islamophobic “us” vs “them” mentality which is being fomented by our rulers to justify their aggression, I can see this clearly and act in my self-interest.

On a moral level I do not believe in supremacism, whether it is racial (“White supremacism”), religious (“radical Islam”), ethnic (“Zionism”), or political (“American exceptionalism”). Whatever the basis it is evil in that it causes suffering to others and reckless in that it risks human annihilation. I believe in “separate but equal”. People living together in harmony and with mutual respect do not start wars, particularly nuclear wars.

On a related note, I think the rulers are currently fomenting nationalism and other hatreds (particularly Islamophobia, which is off the charts in the “West” even though, on an objective level, in the current time period (last few decades, i.e., living memory for most people), Muslims have killed a tiny fraction of the number of “Westerners” as “Westerners” have killed Muslims) because they are setting the table for WW III. I think WW III will be extremely bloody and a large majority of humanity will perish. I also think the global rulers who are currently fomenting extreme nationalism and religious intolerance (including radical Islam throughout the world, which is fomented by the very same people who are fomenting Islamophobia in the “West” and elsewhere) will then blame this war on nationalism and religion in a quest to destroy both and usher in their global (totalitarian) government.

In other words, the irony for me is, those people who claim to be pro-nation state and anti-globalist (anti global government), but who are Islamophobic (amongst other hatreds), are actually the “useful idiots” who will bring about the exact opposite of what they want. All because they are incapable of looking beyond a very primitive, primordial “us” vs “them” mentality.

This is correct, but if one is a signatory to the international treaties and protocols - one is guilty of treachery and hypocrisy (irrespective of others that violate the law). If we want to live by the law of the jungle, we should at least dispense with the legal veneer of 'civilization', no?

Ulysses Everett McGill: It ain't the law!
Sheriff Cooley: The law? The law is a human institution.

The UN is a weak institution and is repeatedly bypassed by any country with the political will to do so. The countries that are economically and militarily strong enough do as they please.

Otherwise you make some good points.

Hey iffen,

This is correct, but if one is a signatory to the international treaties and protocols – one is guilty of treachery and hypocrisy (irrespective of others that violate the law). If we want to live by the law of the jungle, we should at least dispense with the legal veneer of ‘civilization’, no?

Without making a career out of studying the origin and evolution of the UN and its policies, I will say that most of the US people involved likely thought of it as a useful tool to recruit help in policing the world by the dictates of the US. Of course I am sure that there were some romantics and idealists around at the time that had different opinions about the prospects of the UN. We could probably find some in rehab centers if we looked hard enough.

I challenge you to assert that a UN treaty would pass the US Senate today. I really don’t understand how funding for the UN gets through these days.

I am a realist, Talha, and I know that that looks like a defeatist from certain angles. I know that humanities’ great philosophers and religions have been trying to tame the law of the jungle for some time now, but it ain’t happened yet.

It’s really just a part of the liberal redefinition of language/history that we call these diseases that devastated the Amerinds “European diseases”.

I would think they are often referred to that as they were brought to the Americas by European settlers/invaders.

Some diseases have been intentionally spread to Europeans such as the bubonic plague by Islamic Mongols

The black plague likely originated in Mongolia so it might be appropriate to call it a Mongolian disease but the connection to Islam entirely escapes any rational mind. The claim of it being spread intentionally is utter rubbish.

As to why it is not called the Mongolian plague I do not have the answer, except to say, it is not clear how the plague spread to Europe. The best theory is that it traveled along the Silk Road, in which event the merchants who spread the disease could have been of "Christian European" (lol) or any other origin. There is also a theory that at least one wave was spread by the Chinese navy.

So, what we have is one situation where it is clear that a number of Europeans traveling to the Americans brought with them a number of diseases, and another situation where it is even today (despite extensive genetic testing) not clear how the disease spread or who spread it.

“The black plague likely originated in Mongolia so it might be appropriate to call it a Mongolian disease but the connection to Islam entirely escapes any rational mind. The claim of it being spread intentionally is utter rubbish.”

Both statements (connection to Islam, and spread by Mongols intentionally) I wrote were true.

First, religion was not the cause of the battle of Kaffa. A more compelling reason for the battle was ethnic: the (Turkish) Tatars objected to the Italian slave trade of ethnic Turkish slaves. Moreover there is no evidence whatsoever that the tactic of trying to use disease (as opposed to wood, metal, fire or other means) to conquer the city had any bearing whatsoever on religion.

Second the Tatars (who had been conquered by the Mongolians a century or so earlier) were the ones who catapulted the dead bodies over the city wall, not the Mongolians (though the Tatars were also Muslim).

Third it is not clear at all that this act caused the spread of the disease in the city (it is generally believed one cannot catch the plague from a dead body). More likely rats (the common transmission method) made it inside the city and spread the disease there, much like they did everywhere else there was an outbreak (and, in particular, much as they did to the Mongolian and Tatar forces which were laying siege to the city - according to de Mussis thousands were dying daily from the disease). De Mussis also insists the Tatars thought the stench, not the disease, would kill the city inhabitants (i.e., it was designed not as biological war but as olfactory war).

Finally, it was not the Mongolians who brought the disease to Europe according to this account (which, by the way, is one of many theories of how black plague came to Europe and not even a primary theory - the primary theories are the two I mentioned earlier). In this account, the Italian merchants who escaped Kaffa brought it back to Europe with them.

Thus the claim of the disease being spread to Europe intentionally, which is the claim you made and to which I responded, is, as I wrote earlier, entirely rubbish.

This is correct, but if one is a signatory to the international treaties and protocols - one is guilty of treachery and hypocrisy (irrespective of others that violate the law). If we want to live by the law of the jungle, we should at least dispense with the legal veneer of 'civilization', no?

Peace.

Without making a career out of studying the origin and evolution of the UN and its policies, I will say that most of the US people involved likely thought of it as a useful tool to recruit help in policing the world by the dictates of the US. Of course I am sure that there were some romantics and idealists around at the time that had different opinions about the prospects of the UN. We could probably find some in rehab centers if we looked hard enough.

I challenge you to assert that a UN treaty would pass the US Senate today. I really don’t understand how funding for the UN gets through these days.

I am a realist, Talha, and I know that that looks like a defeatist from certain angles. I know that humanities’ great philosophers and religions have been trying to tame the law of the jungle for some time now, but it ain’t happened yet.

Very true. As horrible as this violence is is, it might help Trump get elected. That’s necessary before things can get better.

But listen to Tom Brokaw’s installment for today, 9/26/16 (Syrian refugees.) The institutionalized ignorance and self-imposed stupidity of the rich and famous (read Tom Brokaw) is almost too over the top to believe.

"The black plague likely originated in Mongolia so it might be appropriate to call it a Mongolian disease but the connection to Islam entirely escapes any rational mind. The claim of it being spread intentionally is utter rubbish."

Both statements (connection to Islam, and spread by Mongols intentionally) I wrote were true.

First, religion was not the cause of the battle of Kaffa. A more compelling reason for the battle was ethnic: the (Turkish) Tatars objected to the Italian slave trade of ethnic Turkish slaves. Moreover there is no evidence whatsoever that the tactic of trying to use disease (as opposed to wood, metal, fire or other means) to conquer the city had any bearing whatsoever on religion.

Second the Tatars (who had been conquered by the Mongolians a century or so earlier) were the ones who catapulted the dead bodies over the city wall, not the Mongolians (though the Tatars were also Muslim).

Third it is not clear at all that this act caused the spread of the disease in the city (it is generally believed one cannot catch the plague from a dead body). More likely rats (the common transmission method) made it inside the city and spread the disease there, much like they did everywhere else there was an outbreak (and, in particular, much as they did to the Mongolian and Tatar forces which were laying siege to the city – according to de Mussis thousands were dying daily from the disease). De Mussis also insists the Tatars thought the stench, not the disease, would kill the city inhabitants (i.e., it was designed not as biological war but as olfactory war).

Finally, it was not the Mongolians who brought the disease to Europe according to this account (which, by the way, is one of many theories of how black plague came to Europe and not even a primary theory – the primary theories are the two I mentioned earlier). In this account, the Italian merchants who escaped Kaffa brought it back to Europe with them.

Thus the claim of the disease being spread to Europe intentionally, which is the claim you made and to which I responded, is, as I wrote earlier, entirely rubbish.

"First, religion was not the cause of the battle of Kaffa. A more compelling reason for the battle was ethnic: the (Turkish) Tatars objected to the Italian slave trade of ethnic Turkish slaves. Moreover there is no evidence whatsoever that the tactic of trying to use disease (as opposed to wood, metal, fire or other means) to conquer the city had any bearing whatsoever on religion."

-Misdirection. Who claimed religion was the cause of the battle? That being said, you refuted yourself because you earlier said that it was not by Muslims, whereas the Turkish Tatars were known Muslims. What's more, they were known to be part of the Mongolian Golden Horde- in some regions, they were the Golden Horde. What you've said in no way disproves that it was Islamic individuals. In fact, you've further proven the point.

BTW- given all the slavery being practiced by the Turks and Muslims in general at the time, they'd hardly have a leg to stand on for anyone doing it to them.

"Third it is not clear at all that this act caused the spread of the disease in the city (it is generally believed one cannot catch the plague from a dead body). More likely rats (the common transmission method) made it inside the city and spread the disease there, much like they did everywhere else there was an outbreak (and, in particular, much as they did to the Mongolian and Tatar forces which were laying siege to the city – according to de Mussis thousands were dying daily from the disease). "

-Theory on your part. Maybe so, maybe not. Still does not disprove an intent to spread it, does it?

"De Mussis also insists the Tatars thought the stench, not the disease, would kill the city inhabitants (i.e., it was designed not as biological war but as olfactory war)."

-I'm sure the inhabitants of Kaffa would forgive them now that they know their true intentions. They were only trying to kill them a different way because they were ignorant of disease transmission (assuming some leftist apologist isn't simply pulling it out of his a**, which it certainly sounds like).

" In this account, the Italian merchants who escaped Kaffa brought it back to Europe with them.Thus the claim of the disease being spread to Europe intentionally, which is the claim you made and to which I responded, is, as I wrote earlier, entirely rubbish."

-Nonsense. They spread it intentionally to the inhabitants of Kaffa. Whether or not the inhabitants of Kaffa fled, spreading it further, you still have this group of Muslims still intentionally spreading it, and causing an outbreak. If an ISIS cell intentionally spread a communicable disease to NYC (regardless of whether or not they believed it killed people by it's smell), and it ended up getting spread across the country, it would obviously be the case that ISIS was responsible.

So there were periods of peace and toleration followed by periods of Muslim hostility and intolerance towards Coptic Christians and over time this led to the diminution of their formerly large communities in Egypt

Exactly, so when times were good, the conversions were out of sincerity or to get relaxation on taxes and when times were bad, people likely converted out of fear. And the Mamluk period of intense discrimination and violence was not the norm throughout Egyptian history and simply exemplified "the last and most important in an intermittent series of Coptic conversion waves". This and the fact that lots of Muslims moved into Egypt (something they obviously wouldn't have been able to do under Byzantine control) should explain the percentages of Muslim-to-Copt pretty clearly. Read the article by Nassim Taleb which explains how Islam simply "out-stubborned" Christianity by having policies that allowed the religious trend to go only in one direction. It is simply a mathematical conclusion that if other religions are not allowed to preach to Muslims in their lands, even if Muslim numbers increase modestly by a mere .5% conversion every generation, it will lead to a Muslim majority within a certain number of centuries unless non-Muslims massively out breed them.

And it is telling that historians can see that the dhimmi relations in the Mamluk period was an aberration from Islamic norms:"Only the Ayyubids [Saladin and his successors] seemed to have managed to limit even their harshest moments to remain within the boundaries of traditional Islamic precedent, while the Mamluks seemed to have periodically allowed mob activity (rather than central policy) to carry out the harshest measures against their Christian subjects."Coptic Identity and Ayyubid Politics in Egypt 1218-1250

As an aside...

As more asides; the Timurids make the Ottomans look like cheesecakes, and Ivan tortured Tatars in full view of the gates of Kazan to make the population submit (not even talking about after he won the battle), and the British used to tie up prisoners to the fronts of cannons and blow them apart in India (Mughals also did this), and the Italians put Libyans in concentration camps, and...and...some people like playing the "atrocity tennis match" - I'd like to stick to the issues at hand.

When European Christians colonized Algeria and other Muslim nations they made no attempt to convert Muslims either peacefully or forcefully.

Correct, by the time Europeans had stopped walloping each other over heresies and finally had the wherewithal to attack Muslim lands, religion to them had been reduced to either a joke or a hobby by men like Voltaire and Hume and Rousseau. Why would you try to convert others to something your own populace doesn't take seriously or as a mythological construct?

This is owing to the tolerance of the white European race and since they were primarily concerned with economic exploitation and not religious conversion of the Muslim population.

No, this is owing to the switch of priorities as you outlined above. They were far more concerned about material than spiritual. Why would Napolean's men fight and die in Egypt and the Levant to spread Christianity? Now gold, that's another subject...It is said that the Taino chief, Hatuey, fought the Spanish on Hispaniola and escaped to warn the Cubans with these words:"As later recorded by Spanish priest Bartolomé de las Casas, Hatuey showed the Cubans a basket full of gold and jewels. “Here is the God the Spaniards worship,” he said, “for these they fight and kill; for these they persecute us and that is why we have to throw them into the sea…"

http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/oriente/hatuey.htm

They had simply found a different god - and they were not "tolerant" of those that got in their way - scorched earth policies on recalcitrant tribes in North Africa tell the tale.

Even the Christian crusaders of outremer made few if any attempts at converting Muslims after their initial successes reclaiming the Holy Land.

The Crusaders were a motley bunch; some were very noble and just and some were horrific tyrants. Some emptied out entire cities of Muslim populations (and when Muslims returned, sometimes they emptied out entire cities of the Latins). And they likely found that trying to convert Muslims is by far a lost cause as Belloc mentioned far more trouble than it is worth.

And some Muslims willingly lived under Christian kings although I do believe they had to pay a poll tax similar to the Jizya.

Yup - some of the Crusader kingdoms were fair rulers. And the reverse-jizya (which is basically loyalty and taxes) was the deal with the Tatars under the Russians as well (once they gave up on trying to forcibly convert or otherwise eradicate Islam under Empress Catherine - http://www.indiana.edu/~cahist/Readings/2010Fall/Islam_and_Modernity/Fisher_Enlightened_Despotism.pdf) and was supposed to be the same with the Moors and the Spaniards, but the Spaniards reneged and expelled them (you can read the terms of surrender here):http://voyager.dvc.edu/~mpowell/afam/surrendergranada.pdf

Peace.

Exactly, so when times were good, the conversions were out of sincerity or to get relaxation on taxes and when times were bad, people likely converted out of fear.

Well, yes and no. This doesn’t change the fact that even in the “good” times Copts often occupied a lower legal plane than Muslims and their upward social mobility was limited. This system was designed to encourage conversions and and did just that over a period of time. No doubt there were willing conversions (not forced) immediately following the Muslim conquest as some Copts were not happy with the Orthodox Church in Constantinople and figured the grass was greener (so to speak) with Islam and/or found the doctrines of Islam simpler and more palatable.

Today we seem to be entering into another phase of repression of the Egyptian Copts given the well publicized beheadings on the beach in 2015, destruction of some of their churches and kidnappings and rape of Coptic women by Muslims.

And the Mamluk period of intense discrimination and violence was not the norm throughout Egyptian history and simply exemplified “

Possibly not. In Lothrop Stoddard’s book New World Of Islam he credits the Turkish influence (Seljuk, Mamluke, Ottoman) to much of the atrocities and bad press associated with Islam. I’ve been unable to finish the book because I keep misplacing it. But Wahabbism and all the unrest and violence it’s created is a Bedouin-Arab phenomenon which has become a menace once again with the rise if ISIS and their sympathizers throughout the Middle East and the entire Muslim world.

…..and the British used to tie up prisoners to the fronts of cannons and blow them apart in India (Mughals also did this), and the Italians put Libyans in concentration camps, and…and…some people like playing the “atrocity tennis match” – I’d like to stick to the issues at hand.

The Brits didn’t do it to prisoners or simply for sport. The only instance in which they did this was after suppressing the Sepoy mutiny where both Hindu and Muslim Sepoys had assassinated some British officers and their families usually while they were sleeping. The numbers killed in this fashion was around 400 max. When the English colonists revolted against the British Crown they did so by attacking armed British soldiers not murdering the officers and their families while they slept. Context is everything.

This is not to say that Europeans are incapable of committing atrocities. Immediately after they took Jerusalem, the crusaders slaughtered many Muslims, including women and children, after they surrendered and volunteered to leave the city. Some crusaders attacked and killed Jews on their way to the holy land. Or when the Romans attacked Carthage, slew all the men, razed it to the ground and sold the surviving women and children into slavery. The European Thirty Years War between Protestant and Catholic makes ISIS look restrained but in another 25 years we’ll see.

….and the Italians put Libyans in concentration camps

Yes, not good, but it had nothing to do with persecuting Muslims over their religious beliefs. Italy also agreed to pay 5 billion dollars in compensation and reparations in 2008. Turkey has yet to pay reparations to central Europeans, Romanians and Hungarians for the invasion, death and destruction they wrought from the 15th through the 18th centuries?

“As later recorded by Spanish priest Bartolomé de las Casas, Hatuey showed the Cubans a basket full of gold and jewels. “Here is the God the Spaniards worship,” he said, “for these they fight and kill; for these they persecute us and that is why we have to throw them into the sea…”

Of the conquistadors lust for wealth and gold I have no doubt, but Muslim rulers throughout history didn’t exactly eschew gold and wealth. It was none other than the prophet Muhammed and the first Muslims who raided caravans and stole possessions of Meccans. Likewise, Muslims robbing Christian pilgrims of their possessions and sometimes killing them in the holy land was one reason for the Crusades. And the Saudi royal family, with it’s ostentatious displays of obscene wealth, make the Spanish conquistadors look like the Beverly Hillbillies. So some Muslims also worship the golden calf right alongside their otherwordly deity.

Spaniards reneged and expelled them (you can read the terms of surrender here):

After a good faith attempt to reach an accord with the remaining Moorish population things didn’t seem to be working out as hoped. That is because even after forced conversion of many Moors to Christianity there was still lingering ethnic tension among the old Spanish Christians and Moriscos (just as there had been with conversos, or converted Jews) and the Spanish rulers viewed the Moriscos as a fifth column within the Spanish nation.

This doesn’t change the fact that even in the “good” times Copts often occupied a lower legal plane than Muslims and their upward social mobility was limited.

Correct, this was by design. Non-Muslims cannot obtain to certain positions in a Muslim polity like governorship and upper echelons of leadership positions. You can certainly point out to me any cases of pre-modern Christian or Western societies that allowed Muslims or Jews to attain the same - I would love to see them. But they often did pretty well and attained to high-enough positions (Rambam was chief physician to Saladin and the realm) - which is, ironically, why lower-class mobs envied them in Egypt.

This system was designed to encourage conversions and and did just that over a period of time.

As I said, this is by design - why would one expect a land governed by Islam to act as a secular state in this regard and not give official support to it over other religions - the idea is baffling. Even today, I heard in a lecture, that the Malaysian government intervenes to help out a citizen with their financial situation if they seem to be on the edge of leaving Islam to encourage them to stay firm on it. Its constitution makes Islam the official state religion while guaranteeing freedom of practice of other religions - seems fine to me. We are not SJWs.

Today we seem to be entering into another phase of repression of the Egyptian Copts

Correct, we are working on this - it will take some time to purge or marginalize the Wahabbi/Salafi extremists in Egypt - it has a strong foothold there. I would again love to see where the qualified Sunni Orthodox scholars are approving of this. You said context is everything, but don't seem to understand we are currently in the throes of a violent 'Reformation' phase - and unfortunately many Christians in our midst are caught up in it due to proximity. Best thing Western governments can do is not destabilize the governments and institutions that are protecting them. For instance, the kingdom of Morocco is protective of its Jewish citizens (and was, even in WW2 - http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/327772/honoring-the-moroccan-king-who-saved-the-jews/) even though it is an autocratic system - leave it alone.

But Wahabbism and all the unrest and violence

Working on it. To lump Islam with a relatively recent heterodox doctrine and all the troubles it is causing (mostly within Muslim lands) seems silly. You can ask the British why they helped support it and helped it rise to prominence after the Ottomans had crushed it.

Context is everything. This is not to say that Europeans are incapable of committing atrocities.

This is good - so if one can see past that capacity and try to concentrate and encourage the good from one side, then why should we react any differently to the sometimes sanguinary history on ours.

but Muslim rulers throughout history didn’t exactly eschew gold and wealth

Of course not, but I was talking about the ethos of the society as a whole. I specifically asked in the case of Napoleon - if he had said; hey guys, these guys won't allow preaching of Christianity in their lands let's go fight for it, who's with me? But rather, he said; we need to secure profitable trade rights for France and the Ottomans are in the way, who's with me?

It was none other than the prophet Muhammed and the first Muslims who raided caravans and stole possessions of Meccans.

LOL! Are you seriously arguing that the man lived a luxurious life??!! He died with his armor on loan to a Jew for a sack of wheat he didn't have money for (http://lifeofprophet.com/the-bed-of-the-prophet/). I like how the Meccans are regarded here as the victims when they expelled the Muslims and looted their belongings and dwellings that they left behind. This is normal warfare of the siege and interdiction variety to cripple the economic capability of a people to wage war - the US torpedoed anything leaving the Japanese harbors in WW2. You can read the works of Prof. David Nicolle to see if this was a departure from the norms of medieval warfare tactics.

So some Muslims also worship the golden calf right alongside their otherwordly deity.

You seem to think I have some air-brushed view of Muslims - I don't. I know quite well that Ghaznavids raided and looted many Hindu temples in India. I also know enough about my religion to know that this kind of behavior is not sanctioned by it. But hey, rulers that are willing to beat and imprison Muslim scholars for criticizing them don't much care what legal boundaries they are crossing. I was simply pointing out why the imperial conquests of the Europeans would not have (at that point in history) had much of a religious character.

It is a bit surprising to me that you are willing to see the forced conversions of Muslims and Jews (and their repression under the Inquisition) and the eventual expulsion of all Moriscos (whether they were sincere Christians or not - http://www.brill.com/products/book/expulsion-moriscos-spain) and Jews in such context and simply call it a failure to reach an accord - whereas you are not able to see the 'context' in the Muslim side of history. That's OK - the Ottomans welcomed them into the Muslim lands and even sent the imperial navy to help them:
http://www.sephardicstudies.org/sultans1.html

For my part, I am able to see the high and low marks of Christian (and European) civilization and history. Sometimes they reached very high moral ideals and sometimes they were tyrannical. As you said, context is everything.

Ibn Jubayr wrote a lot about the Crusader states and Norman Sicily and their subjects, pretty fascinating.
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/prh3/259/texts/jubayr.htm
http://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/197806/muslim.sicily.htm

Exactly, so when times were good, the conversions were out of sincerity or to get relaxation on taxes and when times were bad, people likely converted out of fear.

Well, yes and no. This doesn't change the fact that even in the "good" times Copts often occupied a lower legal plane than Muslims and their upward social mobility was limited. This system was designed to encourage conversions and and did just that over a period of time. No doubt there were willing conversions (not forced) immediately following the Muslim conquest as some Copts were not happy with the Orthodox Church in Constantinople and figured the grass was greener (so to speak) with Islam and/or found the doctrines of Islam simpler and more palatable.

Today we seem to be entering into another phase of repression of the Egyptian Copts given the well publicized beheadings on the beach in 2015, destruction of some of their churches and kidnappings and rape of Coptic women by Muslims.

And the Mamluk period of intense discrimination and violence was not the norm throughout Egyptian history and simply exemplified “

Possibly not. In Lothrop Stoddard's book New World Of Islam he credits the Turkish influence (Seljuk, Mamluke, Ottoman) to much of the atrocities and bad press associated with Islam. I've been unable to finish the book because I keep misplacing it. But Wahabbism and all the unrest and violence it's created is a Bedouin-Arab phenomenon which has become a menace once again with the rise if ISIS and their sympathizers throughout the Middle East and the entire Muslim world.

.....and the British used to tie up prisoners to the fronts of cannons and blow them apart in India (Mughals also did this), and the Italians put Libyans in concentration camps, and…and…some people like playing the “atrocity tennis match” – I’d like to stick to the issues at hand.

The Brits didn't do it to prisoners or simply for sport. The only instance in which they did this was after suppressing the Sepoy mutiny where both Hindu and Muslim Sepoys had assassinated some British officers and their families usually while they were sleeping. The numbers killed in this fashion was around 400 max. When the English colonists revolted against the British Crown they did so by attacking armed British soldiers not murdering the officers and their families while they slept. Context is everything.

This is not to say that Europeans are incapable of committing atrocities. Immediately after they took Jerusalem, the crusaders slaughtered many Muslims, including women and children, after they surrendered and volunteered to leave the city. Some crusaders attacked and killed Jews on their way to the holy land. Or when the Romans attacked Carthage, slew all the men, razed it to the ground and sold the surviving women and children into slavery. The European Thirty Years War between Protestant and Catholic makes ISIS look restrained but in another 25 years we'll see.

....and the Italians put Libyans in concentration camps

Yes, not good, but it had nothing to do with persecuting Muslims over their religious beliefs. Italy also agreed to pay 5 billion dollars in compensation and reparations in 2008. Turkey has yet to pay reparations to central Europeans, Romanians and Hungarians for the invasion, death and destruction they wrought from the 15th through the 18th centuries?

“As later recorded by Spanish priest Bartolomé de las Casas, Hatuey showed the Cubans a basket full of gold and jewels. “Here is the God the Spaniards worship,” he said, “for these they fight and kill; for these they persecute us and that is why we have to throw them into the sea…”

Of the conquistadors lust for wealth and gold I have no doubt, but Muslim rulers throughout history didn't exactly eschew gold and wealth. It was none other than the prophet Muhammed and the first Muslims who raided caravans and stole possessions of Meccans. Likewise, Muslims robbing Christian pilgrims of their possessions and sometimes killing them in the holy land was one reason for the Crusades. And the Saudi royal family, with it's ostentatious displays of obscene wealth, make the Spanish conquistadors look like the Beverly Hillbillies. So some Muslims also worship the golden calf right alongside their otherwordly deity.

Spaniards reneged and expelled them (you can read the terms of surrender here):

After a good faith attempt to reach an accord with the remaining Moorish population things didn't seem to be working out as hoped. That is because even after forced conversion of many Moors to Christianity there was still lingering ethnic tension among the old Spanish Christians and Moriscos (just as there had been with conversos, or converted Jews) and the Spanish rulers viewed the Moriscos as a fifth column within the Spanish nation.

Hey KH,

This doesn’t change the fact that even in the “good” times Copts often occupied a lower legal plane than Muslims and their upward social mobility was limited.

Correct, this was by design. Non-Muslims cannot obtain to certain positions in a Muslim polity like governorship and upper echelons of leadership positions. You can certainly point out to me any cases of pre-modern Christian or Western societies that allowed Muslims or Jews to attain the same – I would love to see them. But they often did pretty well and attained to high-enough positions (Rambam was chief physician to Saladin and the realm) – which is, ironically, why lower-class mobs envied them in Egypt.

This system was designed to encourage conversions and and did just that over a period of time.

As I said, this is by design – why would one expect a land governed by Islam to act as a secular state in this regard and not give official support to it over other religions – the idea is baffling. Even today, I heard in a lecture, that the Malaysian government intervenes to help out a citizen with their financial situation if they seem to be on the edge of leaving Islam to encourage them to stay firm on it. Its constitution makes Islam the official state religion while guaranteeing freedom of practice of other religions – seems fine to me. We are not SJWs.

Today we seem to be entering into another phase of repression of the Egyptian Copts

Correct, we are working on this – it will take some time to purge or marginalize the Wahabbi/Salafi extremists in Egypt – it has a strong foothold there. I would again love to see where the qualified Sunni Orthodox scholars are approving of this. You said context is everything, but don’t seem to understand we are currently in the throes of a violent ‘Reformation’ phase – and unfortunately many Christians in our midst are caught up in it due to proximity. Best thing Western governments can do is not destabilize the governments and institutions that are protecting them. For instance, the kingdom of Morocco is protective of its Jewish citizens (and was, even in WW2 – http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/327772/honoring-the-moroccan-king-who-saved-the-jews/) even though it is an autocratic system – leave it alone.

But Wahabbism and all the unrest and violence

Working on it. To lump Islam with a relatively recent heterodox doctrine and all the troubles it is causing (mostly within Muslim lands) seems silly. You can ask the British why they helped support it and helped it rise to prominence after the Ottomans had crushed it.

Context is everything. This is not to say that Europeans are incapable of committing atrocities.

This is good – so if one can see past that capacity and try to concentrate and encourage the good from one side, then why should we react any differently to the sometimes sanguinary history on ours.

but Muslim rulers throughout history didn’t exactly eschew gold and wealth

Of course not, but I was talking about the ethos of the society as a whole. I specifically asked in the case of Napoleon – if he had said; hey guys, these guys won’t allow preaching of Christianity in their lands let’s go fight for it, who’s with me? But rather, he said; we need to secure profitable trade rights for France and the Ottomans are in the way, who’s with me?

It was none other than the prophet Muhammed and the first Muslims who raided caravans and stole possessions of Meccans.

LOL! Are you seriously arguing that the man lived a luxurious life??!! He died with his armor on loan to a Jew for a sack of wheat he didn’t have money for (http://lifeofprophet.com/the-bed-of-the-prophet/). I like how the Meccans are regarded here as the victims when they expelled the Muslims and looted their belongings and dwellings that they left behind. This is normal warfare of the siege and interdiction variety to cripple the economic capability of a people to wage war – the US torpedoed anything leaving the Japanese harbors in WW2. You can read the works of Prof. David Nicolle to see if this was a departure from the norms of medieval warfare tactics.

So some Muslims also worship the golden calf right alongside their otherwordly deity.

You seem to think I have some air-brushed view of Muslims – I don’t. I know quite well that Ghaznavids raided and looted many Hindu temples in India. I also know enough about my religion to know that this kind of behavior is not sanctioned by it. But hey, rulers that are willing to beat and imprison Muslim scholars for criticizing them don’t much care what legal boundaries they are crossing. I was simply pointing out why the imperial conquests of the Europeans would not have (at that point in history) had much of a religious character.

It is a bit surprising to me that you are willing to see the forced conversions of Muslims and Jews (and their repression under the Inquisition) and the eventual expulsion of all Moriscos (whether they were sincere Christians or not – http://www.brill.com/products/book/expulsion-moriscos-spain) and Jews in such context and simply call it a failure to reach an accord – whereas you are not able to see the ‘context’ in the Muslim side of history. That’s OK – the Ottomans welcomed them into the Muslim lands and even sent the imperial navy to help them:

For my part, I am able to see the high and low marks of Christian (and European) civilization and history. Sometimes they reached very high moral ideals and sometimes they were tyrannical. As you said, context is everything.

You can certainly point out to me any cases of pre-modern Christian or Western societies that allowed Muslims or Jews to attain the same – I would love to see them

Simple. Most European nations had Jewish populations with more than a few attaining positions of influence in trade, commerce and banking. They were expelled from most Europeans nations for various allegations ranging from ritual murder to sharp business practices and usury and whether or not this was deserved is beyond the scope of this debate. But they often were, at minimum, at least as successful in European Christian nations as their brethren residing in Muslim ruled nations.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/anti-Semitism/Anti-Semitism-in-medieval-Europe

Muslims were almost a complete non-entity in medieval Europe with the exception of Spain which they invaded and ruled for a long period.

As I said, this is by design – why would one expect a land governed by Islam to act as a secular state in this regard and not give official support to it over other religions – the idea is baffling.

No problem, but don't forget the cacophony and cries of "Islamophobia" from organized Muslim groups in America and Muslim nations when America and Europe propose sensible steps to curb or reverse Muslim immigration or surveil them to thwart terrorist attacks. Muslims demand equal rights in the diaspora but rarely extend equal rights to non-Muslims in Muslim ruled nations. This is pure hypocrisy and neither America nor any Western nation was intended to be a haven for all the world's races and religions which is a recipe for disaster and is an injustice to the founding European stock.

Best thing Western governments can do is not destabilize the governments and institutions that are protecting them

Totally agree. U.S. foreign policy is a mess (mostly be design) and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, and the ongoing attempted overthrow of Bashar Assad and who knows what else will forever be a dark stain on this nation's history. All to remake the Middle East in Israel's image and likeness.

Working on it. To lump Islam with a relatively recent heterodox doctrine and all the troubles it is causing (mostly within Muslim lands) seems silly. You can ask the British why they helped support it and helped it rise to prominence after the Ottomans had crushed it.

I don't recall lumping Islam with Wahhabism. Damn the Brits for aiding it in its formative years, but the Saudis are the chief disseminators of the Wahhabist creed and have been for a long time.

Of course not, but I was talking about the ethos of the society as a whole. I specifically asked in the case of Napoleon – if he had said; hey guys, these guys won’t allow preaching of Christianity in their lands let’s go fight for it, who’s with me? But rather, he said; we need to secure profitable trade rights for France and the Ottomans are in the way, who’s with me?

Ok, I may have misunderstood you and thought you were implying that only major figures in Christian/European history were preoccupied with material gain and less with spiritual salvation. But you are correct, a war to allow preaching of Christianity in faraway lands would not have inspired anyone during Napoleon's time save for maybe a handful. Even some crusading armies lost their zeal and turned back half way to the holy land as in the case of Frederick I of Barbarossa's army.

LOL! Are you seriously arguing that the man lived a luxurious life??!! He died with his armor on loan to a Jew for a sack of wheat he didn’t have money for

I don't recall saying Muhammed live a luxurious life; only that the historical record, even Muslim sources, record Muhammed and the first Muslims raiding caravans and it would be a little naive to think it was all done for altruistic reasons.

You seem to think I have some air-brushed view of Muslims – I don’t. I know quite well that Ghaznavids raided and looted many Hindu temples in India. I also know enough about my religion to know that this kind of behavior is not sanctioned by it.

Again, I did not think I implied that as from our previous exchanges and this one you've been respectful, honest and debate in good faith (unlike a few people on Unz) which I always appreciate.

It is a bit surprising to me that you are willing to see the forced conversions of Muslims and Jews (and their repression under the Inquisition) and the eventual expulsion of all Moriscos (whether they were sincere Christians or not – http://www.brill.com/products/book/expulsion-moriscos-spain) and Jews in such context and simply call it a failure to reach an accord – whereas you are not able to see the ‘context’ in the Muslim side of history. That’s OK – the Ottomans welcomed them into the Muslim lands and even sent the imperial navy to help them:

That's not quite fair. The Muslim occupiers of Al-Andalus were not always tolerant or kind to Christians contrary to popular, PC wisdom.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1610170954/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=1SRE8LSXPZOA&coliid=I3AQF1W9JNNEP4
https://www.amazon.com/Isabella-Spain-William-Thomas-Walsh-ebook/dp/B01JHP4H0C/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1475021230&sr=1-1&keywords=the+last+crusader+isabella+of+spain

Therefore, after more than 700 years of struggle, I personally can't blame the Spanish Christians for harboring a deep distrust of the remaining Muslim and Moriscos as well as Jews who often assisted Muslims throughout the occupation. Keep in mind that this expulsion was far milder than what the Ottoman Turks meted out to the Christian Armenians in 1894 and again in 1915 where 400K and 1.5 million, respectively, were slaughtered by the Turks. You probably see things a little differently and that is ok.

For my part, I am able to see the high and low marks of Christian (and European) civilization and history. Sometimes they reached very high moral ideals and sometimes they were tyrannical. As you said, context is everything.

And I'd like to think I'm a little more objective than you think I am regarding Islam. The sack of the advanced Islamic civilization in Baghdad in 1258 and the slaughter of its inhabitants by the Mongol hordes will go down as one of the greatest tragedies in world history in my opinion. But the friction, conflict and contrast between Islamic and European societies throughout history is hard to ignore and new chapters are now being written that may not end well for either party.

Colonization and imperialism by Europeans in the 1400 and 1500′s, with an emphasis on saving souls, combined with immigration from Europe to the Americas, were the triggers to “invade the world/invite the world”. Indeed, study your history.

Without making a career out of studying the origin and evolution of the UN and its policies, I will say that most of the US people involved likely thought of it as a useful tool to recruit help in policing the world by the dictates of the US. Of course I am sure that there were some romantics and idealists around at the time that had different opinions about the prospects of the UN. We could probably find some in rehab centers if we looked hard enough.

I challenge you to assert that a UN treaty would pass the US Senate today. I really don’t understand how funding for the UN gets through these days.

I am a realist, Talha, and I know that that looks like a defeatist from certain angles. I know that humanities’ great philosophers and religions have been trying to tame the law of the jungle for some time now, but it ain’t happened yet.

Dear iffen,

I am a realist also, but there is a line between being pragmatic and being Machiavellian. If we have no intention to follow these protocols and treaties, we should remove ourselves from membership.

While I abhor nuclear weapons, I will at least respect that Israel, India and Pakistan had the decency to not sign on to the NPT so that the entire world was clear on their intentions.

Even Al-Azhar, has not declared them non-Muslim even though it has stated they are deviant, extremist and sinful.

Please see this article: "Saudi clerics have reacted angrily to recent remarks by Egyptian Grand Imam of al-Azhar, Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, who excluded Salafists from Sunnis during a religious conference in Chechnya, Russia" (this is the conference I linked in a previous posting). Do you think that article is inaccurate? There is also this.

I find the rest of you comment very interesting. I think we are approaching this issue from two different perspectives - you are approaching it from a theological perspective and me from a political. My point is that rulers always use and pervert the dominant ideology, whatever it may be, to accomplish their objectives, whatever they may be. They do this to exploit human nature / psychological processes. It is not only true of religion but also of secular humanism (note how the concept of "democracy" is used to destroy civilizations) or Marxism (Great Leap Forward, etc.). Basically every ideology that strives for peace and harmony is usurped by rulers to accomplish its opposite.

So you can say that the US bombing and destruction of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. is "democratic", but I think if you are objective, you understand it is "imperialistic" and quite anti-democratic. And the same holds true of the Wahhabist exploitation of Islam - it digs into the core belief system of the subject population (Muslims) to turn them into engines of the rulers' imperial agenda. And since it turns its object on its head, it is, in fact, the anti-object. In other words, Wahhabism is the anti-Islam, and I would argue (but not here and now :)), that it's ultimate goal is to discredit and destroy Islam (to usher in the satanic One World Religion).

It gets complicated – it is not black and white.

Takfiris are anti-Islamic, anti-human, anti-God, anti-justice, anti-peace, anti-goodness, in short, pure evil: I am going to state this in black and white, I don't mean to offend but it is completely black and white to me :), even if some of their beliefs have an arguable basis in something that is Islamic, human, just and peaceful.

The fatwas from the Saudis are both for inside and outside their realm:

The fact is ISIS is the Saudis. But of course, there is a fundamental contradiction between the House of Saud and their Wahhabist cult: there is no room for the materialistic, consumerist, jet-setting, alcohol-drinking, prostitute-using, drug-addicted, corrupt Saudi monarchy in Wahhabism, and hence, the House of Saud's own ideology dictates their own destruction. This is why they oppose at home, those whom they arm, fund and encourage abroad.

Peace, inshallah :)

Hey CalDre,

I’ve read a derivative of that article before. I completely agree with it; Wahabbis are not Sunni Orthodox…but they are Muslims – do you see the difference? Just as I can say Shiah and Ibadi are not Sunni Orthodox…but they are Muslim. Sunnis are the super-majority and have been for centuries (there is no parallel in Christianity) and we have self-defining terms:
“All Muslims are guided by the Sunnah, but Sunnis stress it, as well as consensus (ijma; the full name of Sunnis is Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Ijma, people of the Sunnah and consensus). ”

The Wahhabis have broken with consensus on too many issues with the Sunni majority, thus their claims to be part of the Sunnis is lacking. Even so, they are our brothers.

you are approaching it from a theological perspective

Quite so, whether someone is Muslim or not is essentially a theological question – irrespective of the political implications. Declaring one group to be non-Muslim is something I am quite unqualified to do and has profound metaphysical ramifications in the next life if one is wrong.

Takfiris are … in short, pure evil

Again, not all Wahhabi/Salafis are takfiris. But even with takfiris…if they were pure evil, they would not be able to be swayed away from this ideology, but some can be – they are very misguided. And some are a lost cause. My own teachers, here and in Pakistan, have had success in turning people around and guiding them back to normal, traditional understanding. It takes patience and wisdom, but the Sufis have been doing this for ages. Though I will readily admit, there can also be extremists among the Sufis and violent ones at that. Is it common? No – but they do exist in smaller numbers.

Keep in mind, that this trend first showed its face very, very early on; in the form of Khawarij/Kharijis (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Kharijite) who were uncompromising fanatics who called well-known Companions like the third caliph, Ali (ra), as apostates. They called for his death and eventually assassinated him, but look at how he dictated how we must view them:
“The majority [Sunni Orthodox] view takes its cue from ‘Ali (ra), who was asked: Are the Khawarij polytheists? He said: ‘They flee from polytheism.’ Are they hypocrites? He said: ‘The hypocrites remember Allah only a little.’ Then what are they? He said: ‘They are our brothers who transgressed against us (ikhwanuna baghaw ‘alayna), so we fought them for their transgression.’” (http://muslimmatters.org/2015/08/24/khawarij-ideology-isis-savagery-part-one/)

Clear cut and simple – if they would lay down their arms and disperse, then whatever is in their hearts is between them and God. Otherwise there are numerous fatwas from top level scholars and institutions calling for the obligation on fighting them – but I have yet to see a fatwa from the same scholars or institutions on fighting Wahabbis in toto.

the House of Saud’s own ideology dictates their own destruction

This is spot on – this is the Achille’s heel of the Saudi-Wahabbi alliance. At its core, the uncompromising Khariji nature of the ideology demands purity – it is at its core a political interpretation than a theological one. They have let loose the dogs and the dogs can turn on them at any time – it is a precarious position to be in.

Especially on that last point – you know your stuff!

I think this video from Ustadh Nouman Khan, head of the Bayyinah Institute, hits on the head what is going on especially since the younger generation that has been cut off from its traditional roots and is ready for manipulation and how to combat it:

Declaring one group to be non-Muslim is something I am quite unqualified to do and has profound metaphysical ramifications in the next life if one is wrong.

These evildoers defame Islam and every Muslim, and they also reject the word of Allah, as Allah prohibits killing innocent people. If someone clearly violates the basic principles on which Islam is built, how can they be a Muslim? It's like saying, the Saudi monarchy is a "democracy" simply because they claim to believe in "democracy".

If someone violates the fundamental precepts of an ideology, it is incumbent upon the true believers, in fact it is their duty, to denounce the fakes/frauds and to distance the true ideology from the fakes by rejecting them. Coddling them is complicity. While I respect almost everything you have written, this part I think you are absolutely wrong and in writing it you are elevating and supporting evil, and perhaps you should think about how this will affect you in the afterlife.

As to the video, it was interesting, especially the part about the satanic version of "Islam" not only being very sophisticated in terms of its presentation (many comparisons to "Hollywood" have been made, and we know it is not Muslims that run Hollywood), but showing up first in search results (and we know it is not Muslims that control the search results - it is the same group that controls Hollywood). That proves even further, in case any further proof was needed, who is behind this radical brand of "religion", and these people have nothing to do with Islam.

No surprise ((( Ilana Mercer ))) wholly neglects to mention the leading Jewish role in liberalizing immigration laws in every Western country and their continued adamancy for open borders that unites them across both sides of the political spectrum.

This doesn’t change the fact that even in the “good” times Copts often occupied a lower legal plane than Muslims and their upward social mobility was limited.

Correct, this was by design. Non-Muslims cannot obtain to certain positions in a Muslim polity like governorship and upper echelons of leadership positions. You can certainly point out to me any cases of pre-modern Christian or Western societies that allowed Muslims or Jews to attain the same - I would love to see them. But they often did pretty well and attained to high-enough positions (Rambam was chief physician to Saladin and the realm) - which is, ironically, why lower-class mobs envied them in Egypt.

This system was designed to encourage conversions and and did just that over a period of time.

As I said, this is by design - why would one expect a land governed by Islam to act as a secular state in this regard and not give official support to it over other religions - the idea is baffling. Even today, I heard in a lecture, that the Malaysian government intervenes to help out a citizen with their financial situation if they seem to be on the edge of leaving Islam to encourage them to stay firm on it. Its constitution makes Islam the official state religion while guaranteeing freedom of practice of other religions - seems fine to me. We are not SJWs.

Today we seem to be entering into another phase of repression of the Egyptian Copts

Correct, we are working on this - it will take some time to purge or marginalize the Wahabbi/Salafi extremists in Egypt - it has a strong foothold there. I would again love to see where the qualified Sunni Orthodox scholars are approving of this. You said context is everything, but don't seem to understand we are currently in the throes of a violent 'Reformation' phase - and unfortunately many Christians in our midst are caught up in it due to proximity. Best thing Western governments can do is not destabilize the governments and institutions that are protecting them. For instance, the kingdom of Morocco is protective of its Jewish citizens (and was, even in WW2 - http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/327772/honoring-the-moroccan-king-who-saved-the-jews/) even though it is an autocratic system - leave it alone.

But Wahabbism and all the unrest and violence

Working on it. To lump Islam with a relatively recent heterodox doctrine and all the troubles it is causing (mostly within Muslim lands) seems silly. You can ask the British why they helped support it and helped it rise to prominence after the Ottomans had crushed it.

Context is everything. This is not to say that Europeans are incapable of committing atrocities.

This is good - so if one can see past that capacity and try to concentrate and encourage the good from one side, then why should we react any differently to the sometimes sanguinary history on ours.

but Muslim rulers throughout history didn’t exactly eschew gold and wealth

Of course not, but I was talking about the ethos of the society as a whole. I specifically asked in the case of Napoleon - if he had said; hey guys, these guys won't allow preaching of Christianity in their lands let's go fight for it, who's with me? But rather, he said; we need to secure profitable trade rights for France and the Ottomans are in the way, who's with me?

It was none other than the prophet Muhammed and the first Muslims who raided caravans and stole possessions of Meccans.

LOL! Are you seriously arguing that the man lived a luxurious life??!! He died with his armor on loan to a Jew for a sack of wheat he didn't have money for (http://lifeofprophet.com/the-bed-of-the-prophet/). I like how the Meccans are regarded here as the victims when they expelled the Muslims and looted their belongings and dwellings that they left behind. This is normal warfare of the siege and interdiction variety to cripple the economic capability of a people to wage war - the US torpedoed anything leaving the Japanese harbors in WW2. You can read the works of Prof. David Nicolle to see if this was a departure from the norms of medieval warfare tactics.

So some Muslims also worship the golden calf right alongside their otherwordly deity.

You seem to think I have some air-brushed view of Muslims - I don't. I know quite well that Ghaznavids raided and looted many Hindu temples in India. I also know enough about my religion to know that this kind of behavior is not sanctioned by it. But hey, rulers that are willing to beat and imprison Muslim scholars for criticizing them don't much care what legal boundaries they are crossing. I was simply pointing out why the imperial conquests of the Europeans would not have (at that point in history) had much of a religious character.

It is a bit surprising to me that you are willing to see the forced conversions of Muslims and Jews (and their repression under the Inquisition) and the eventual expulsion of all Moriscos (whether they were sincere Christians or not - http://www.brill.com/products/book/expulsion-moriscos-spain) and Jews in such context and simply call it a failure to reach an accord - whereas you are not able to see the 'context' in the Muslim side of history. That's OK - the Ottomans welcomed them into the Muslim lands and even sent the imperial navy to help them:
http://www.sephardicstudies.org/sultans1.html

For my part, I am able to see the high and low marks of Christian (and European) civilization and history. Sometimes they reached very high moral ideals and sometimes they were tyrannical. As you said, context is everything.

Peace.

You can certainly point out to me any cases of pre-modern Christian or Western societies that allowed Muslims or Jews to attain the same – I would love to see them

Simple. Most European nations had Jewish populations with more than a few attaining positions of influence in trade, commerce and banking. They were expelled from most Europeans nations for various allegations ranging from ritual murder to sharp business practices and usury and whether or not this was deserved is beyond the scope of this debate. But they often were, at minimum, at least as successful in European Christian nations as their brethren residing in Muslim ruled nations.

Muslims were almost a complete non-entity in medieval Europe with the exception of Spain which they invaded and ruled for a long period.

As I said, this is by design – why would one expect a land governed by Islam to act as a secular state in this regard and not give official support to it over other religions – the idea is baffling.

No problem, but don’t forget the cacophony and cries of “Islamophobia” from organized Muslim groups in America and Muslim nations when America and Europe propose sensible steps to curb or reverse Muslim immigration or surveil them to thwart terrorist attacks. Muslims demand equal rights in the diaspora but rarely extend equal rights to non-Muslims in Muslim ruled nations. This is pure hypocrisy and neither America nor any Western nation was intended to be a haven for all the world’s races and religions which is a recipe for disaster and is an injustice to the founding European stock.

Best thing Western governments can do is not destabilize the governments and institutions that are protecting them

Totally agree. U.S. foreign policy is a mess (mostly be design) and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, and the ongoing attempted overthrow of Bashar Assad and who knows what else will forever be a dark stain on this nation’s history. All to remake the Middle East in Israel’s image and likeness.

Working on it. To lump Islam with a relatively recent heterodox doctrine and all the troubles it is causing (mostly within Muslim lands) seems silly. You can ask the British why they helped support it and helped it rise to prominence after the Ottomans had crushed it.

I don’t recall lumping Islam with Wahhabism. Damn the Brits for aiding it in its formative years, but the Saudis are the chief disseminators of the Wahhabist creed and have been for a long time.

Of course not, but I was talking about the ethos of the society as a whole. I specifically asked in the case of Napoleon – if he had said; hey guys, these guys won’t allow preaching of Christianity in their lands let’s go fight for it, who’s with me? But rather, he said; we need to secure profitable trade rights for France and the Ottomans are in the way, who’s with me?

Ok, I may have misunderstood you and thought you were implying that only major figures in Christian/European history were preoccupied with material gain and less with spiritual salvation. But you are correct, a war to allow preaching of Christianity in faraway lands would not have inspired anyone during Napoleon’s time save for maybe a handful. Even some crusading armies lost their zeal and turned back half way to the holy land as in the case of Frederick I of Barbarossa’s army.

LOL! Are you seriously arguing that the man lived a luxurious life??!! He died with his armor on loan to a Jew for a sack of wheat he didn’t have money for

I don’t recall saying Muhammed live a luxurious life; only that the historical record, even Muslim sources, record Muhammed and the first Muslims raiding caravans and it would be a little naive to think it was all done for altruistic reasons.

You seem to think I have some air-brushed view of Muslims – I don’t. I know quite well that Ghaznavids raided and looted many Hindu temples in India. I also know enough about my religion to know that this kind of behavior is not sanctioned by it.

Again, I did not think I implied that as from our previous exchanges and this one you’ve been respectful, honest and debate in good faith (unlike a few people on Unz) which I always appreciate.

It is a bit surprising to me that you are willing to see the forced conversions of Muslims and Jews (and their repression under the Inquisition) and the eventual expulsion of all Moriscos (whether they were sincere Christians or not – http://www.brill.com/products/book/expulsion-moriscos-spain) and Jews in such context and simply call it a failure to reach an accord – whereas you are not able to see the ‘context’ in the Muslim side of history. That’s OK – the Ottomans welcomed them into the Muslim lands and even sent the imperial navy to help them:

That’s not quite fair. The Muslim occupiers of Al-Andalus were not always tolerant or kind to Christians contrary to popular, PC wisdom.

Therefore, after more than 700 years of struggle, I personally can’t blame the Spanish Christians for harboring a deep distrust of the remaining Muslim and Moriscos as well as Jews who often assisted Muslims throughout the occupation. Keep in mind that this expulsion was far milder than what the Ottoman Turks meted out to the Christian Armenians in 1894 and again in 1915 where 400K and 1.5 million, respectively, were slaughtered by the Turks. You probably see things a little differently and that is ok.

For my part, I am able to see the high and low marks of Christian (and European) civilization and history. Sometimes they reached very high moral ideals and sometimes they were tyrannical. As you said, context is everything.

And I’d like to think I’m a little more objective than you think I am regarding Islam. The sack of the advanced Islamic civilization in Baghdad in 1258 and the slaughter of its inhabitants by the Mongol hordes will go down as one of the greatest tragedies in world history in my opinion. But the friction, conflict and contrast between Islamic and European societies throughout history is hard to ignore and new chapters are now being written that may not end well for either party.

First off - I can see I misinterpreted some of your statements - so I beg your pardon on that. To commence...

at least as successful in European Christian nations as their brethren residing in Muslim ruled nations

No problem there, I was just asking for examples of parallels of positions where non-Muslims were barred from holding; governorship, military command, head-of-state and the like. Those same positions were open to Jews and Christians in Muslim lands and often by necessity - especially the early Arab conquerors had no experience in running a social organization as complex as the Sassanid Empire. Harun Rahid's son famously stateed, "The Persians ruled for a thousand years and did not need us Arabs even for a day. We have been ruling them for one or two centuries and cannot do without them for an hour." It was this way with the Byzantine Empire as well.

This is correct, because this is the legal structure upon which a secular state is built. They are asking for these rights upon its own terms, according to its principles and legal framework which were those that were advertised when we first opted to come here - otherwise we may not have. Keep in mind, we are fairly small in numbers, so one can simply ignore our outcries when we ask not to be spied upon, but I have a hunch that many other people will decry this kind of spying, not because they like us, but because of the 'slippery slope' of ushering in a new era of Cointelpro. If the majority of the populations in Europe and America do not want to extend equal rights to everyone, that is fine. It would actually be hypocritical for Muslims to stand in the way. Just get the super-majorities going that you need to enact changes to the Constitution like adding exceptions to "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." As far as non-Muslims in Muslim nations, they should be accorded freedom to practice religion and keep to their customs and be protected in their life and property and honor as per Islamic principles. Muslims do not accept them running the country or being able to denigrate our faith in public - otherwise ridiculous things like this happen (http://divine-interventions.com/religioustoys.php) - not...a...chance...we could care less if we are called closed-minded. I personally think this is quite fair and not oppressive.

Non-Muslims have always had the right to petition for improved circumstances (sometimes they were heard and sometimes ignored - depends on who was in charge and the merits of their complaints), there are instances recorded by their own people like Coptic monks that wrote that Amr ibn al-As (ra) replaced the administrator over the Copts because they complained he was being oppressive with the amount of jizya he collected.

the Saudis are the chief disseminators of the Wahhabist creed and have been for a long time

Yes, but who helped them secure the oil wealth that they've used to bankroll this project and who lets them fund mosques and foundations in the West. I understand the Europe and US value freedom of religion, but that does not mean they must always allow foreign funding of religious institutions.

it was all done for altruistic reasons

It wasn't, it was done to deprive Meccans of the ability to fund their war effort - which was quite in display during the battles of Uhud and Khandaq. The only altruism was how spoils were distributed; in helping the poor, destitute, etc. It was as altruistic as the Continental Navy's actions against Imperial Britain - such is war.
"The main goal of the navy was to intercept shipments of British matériel and generally disrupt British maritime commercial operations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Navy

One thing to note about that book - I listened to an interview with its author. He is definitely an academic, but his whole premise is wrong. He is coming at it from a completely ahistoric and leftist perspective. His assumption is; well I heard all this great stuff about Andalusia being a paradise so I checked it out and - whoa - these guys were taking jizya and not allowing churches to be built as high as mosques, etc. But this was par for the course in Islamic administration - he just hadn't come across it before. So I agree with the title; if you thought it was 'paradise' you will certainly find that it is a myth. But, In lieu of all the happenings after the Reconquista - torturous Inquisition, mass expulsion, etc. not to mention the on-again-off-again forced baptisms of the Visigoths prior to Muslim invasion:
"Even that last vestige of toleration of Judaism evaporated in 638 CE when the Sixth Council of Toledo reaffirmed the policy of forcibly baptizing all Iberian Jews. In fact, Toledo VI went far beyond Sisbut’s policy, not only advocating mandatory baptism, but declaring that the king’s right to rule was dependent on his working to eradicate Judaism..."
https://www.pdx.edu/honors/sites/www.pdx.edu.honors/files/11.%20Phillips%20Essay.pdf

In context it may well have been a 'paradise'.

And you are absolutely right about what I have often referred to as the 'hyper-violent' stage of the Ottoman Empire as it was being rolled up and secular Turkish nationalists had taken helm of the ship. It is a very shameful part of our history and one that will take some time to heal. The Turks may have had a right to militarily defend their borders, as any empire would, but the deplorable actions of indiscriminate violence against thousands and thousands of innocents has zero justification. I don't see things differently on this point at all - they will have to stand up before God and answer, there is no way I'm willing to answer for trying to vindicate that kind of butchery.

I’m a little more objective than you think I am regarding Islam

Again, my apologies on this, you certainly have made very balanced statements and acknowledged factual points when cited. With other people, it's like hitting one's head against a wall. And on your last point, this is absolutely true - which is why sincere and fair-minded dialogue needs to be encouraged - far too much is at stake.

First, religion was not the cause of the battle of Kaffa. A more compelling reason for the battle was ethnic: the (Turkish) Tatars objected to the Italian slave trade of ethnic Turkish slaves. Moreover there is no evidence whatsoever that the tactic of trying to use disease (as opposed to wood, metal, fire or other means) to conquer the city had any bearing whatsoever on religion.

Second the Tatars (who had been conquered by the Mongolians a century or so earlier) were the ones who catapulted the dead bodies over the city wall, not the Mongolians (though the Tatars were also Muslim).

Third it is not clear at all that this act caused the spread of the disease in the city (it is generally believed one cannot catch the plague from a dead body). More likely rats (the common transmission method) made it inside the city and spread the disease there, much like they did everywhere else there was an outbreak (and, in particular, much as they did to the Mongolian and Tatar forces which were laying siege to the city - according to de Mussis thousands were dying daily from the disease). De Mussis also insists the Tatars thought the stench, not the disease, would kill the city inhabitants (i.e., it was designed not as biological war but as olfactory war).

Finally, it was not the Mongolians who brought the disease to Europe according to this account (which, by the way, is one of many theories of how black plague came to Europe and not even a primary theory - the primary theories are the two I mentioned earlier). In this account, the Italian merchants who escaped Kaffa brought it back to Europe with them.

Thus the claim of the disease being spread to Europe intentionally, which is the claim you made and to which I responded, is, as I wrote earlier, entirely rubbish.

“First, religion was not the cause of the battle of Kaffa. A more compelling reason for the battle was ethnic: the (Turkish) Tatars objected to the Italian slave trade of ethnic Turkish slaves. Moreover there is no evidence whatsoever that the tactic of trying to use disease (as opposed to wood, metal, fire or other means) to conquer the city had any bearing whatsoever on religion.”

-Misdirection. Who claimed religion was the cause of the battle? That being said, you refuted yourself because you earlier said that it was not by Muslims, whereas the Turkish Tatars were known Muslims. What’s more, they were known to be part of the Mongolian Golden Horde- in some regions, they were the Golden Horde. What you’ve said in no way disproves that it was Islamic individuals. In fact, you’ve further proven the point.

BTW- given all the slavery being practiced by the Turks and Muslims in general at the time, they’d hardly have a leg to stand on for anyone doing it to them.

“Third it is not clear at all that this act caused the spread of the disease in the city (it is generally believed one cannot catch the plague from a dead body). More likely rats (the common transmission method) made it inside the city and spread the disease there, much like they did everywhere else there was an outbreak (and, in particular, much as they did to the Mongolian and Tatar forces which were laying siege to the city – according to de Mussis thousands were dying daily from the disease). ”

-Theory on your part. Maybe so, maybe not. Still does not disprove an intent to spread it, does it?

“De Mussis also insists the Tatars thought the stench, not the disease, would kill the city inhabitants (i.e., it was designed not as biological war but as olfactory war).”

-I’m sure the inhabitants of Kaffa would forgive them now that they know their true intentions. They were only trying to kill them a different way because they were ignorant of disease transmission (assuming some leftist apologist isn’t simply pulling it out of his a**, which it certainly sounds like).

” In this account, the Italian merchants who escaped Kaffa brought it back to Europe with them.
Thus the claim of the disease being spread to Europe intentionally, which is the claim you made and to which I responded, is, as I wrote earlier, entirely rubbish.”

-Nonsense. They spread it intentionally to the inhabitants of Kaffa. Whether or not the inhabitants of Kaffa fled, spreading it further, you still have this group of Muslims still intentionally spreading it, and causing an outbreak. If an ISIS cell intentionally spread a communicable disease to NYC (regardless of whether or not they believed it killed people by it’s smell), and it ended up getting spread across the country, it would obviously be the case that ISIS was responsible.

Your claim is that the black plague should be called Muslim plague as you are desperate to condemn Islam. I'm just pointing out that at no point in the spread of the disease was the Muslim faith a factor.

you refuted yourself because you earlier said that it was not by Muslims, whereas the Turkish Tatars were known Muslims.

I wrote Tatars were Muslims. My other point was and is that Islam had nothing to do with the spread of the disease to Europe.

BTW- given all the slavery being practiced by the Turks and Muslims in general at the time, they’d hardly have a leg to stand on for anyone doing it to them.

Christians were also master slave holders/traders, as were Jews, Communists, pagans, etc. And while the US was busy holding a ton of African slaves, I am quite sure they would have been upset if someone was kidnapping White Gerogians and selling them into slavery, don't you think? And in any case the Tatars were not then slaveholders (they started enslaving Russians several decades after the Kaffa battle).

Theory on your part. Maybe so, maybe not. Still does not disprove an intent to spread it, does it?

First of all when you make any accusation it is your responsibility to prove it, not mine to disprove it. And it's not my theory, it is the explanation of de Mussis who wrote the account of the battle, without which, we probably would not have even known this battle happened: "[T]hey ordered corpses to be placed in catapults and lobbed into the city in the hope that the intolerable stench would kill everyone inside."

I’m sure the inhabitants of Kaffa would forgive them now that they know their true intentions.

Again, misdirection. Your ridiculous claim, and I repeat this again as you continue to engage in misdirection and subterfuge, was that Muslims intentionally spread plague to Europe. Hence this point is crucial: the Tatars did not even intentionally spread the plague to the inhabitants of Kaffa - they had no idea their actions would spread the plague. Do you even know what intent means?

Nonsense. They spread it intentionally to the inhabitants of Kaffa. Whether or not the inhabitants of Kaffa fled, spreading it further, you still have this group of Muslims still intentionally spreading it, and causing an outbreak.

Again, you have twisted everything in your obsession to blame something massively evil on Muslims and to try to discredit a religion.

I have established that the diseases first greatly affected the Tatars, killing thousands per day; and that the disease then spread into the city (either by rats entering the city, the most likely case, or, by the Tatars catapulting dead bodies into the city, but, critically, not with the intent to spread the disease). So there was no intent even to spread it to Kaffa (though there was definitely an intent to conquer the city, and the only reason for that is that the slave traders who were enslaving Tatars had holed up in there). Finally I have established that the disease may have been subsequently brought to Europe by those fleeing Kaffa, but there is no evidence whatsoever that (a) the Tatars knew these individuals would escape from them, or (b) that this would cause the disease to spread to Europe (people of that day tended to think such outbreaks were God's/Allah's punishment and hence there was no reason to think it would spread to "innocent" people), and beyond that there is no evidence whatsoever they intended for any of this to happen (intent requires both knowledge and the desire that the result occur).

If an ISIS cell intentionally spread a communicable disease to NYC (regardless of whether or not they believed it killed people by it’s smell), and it ended up getting spread across the country, it would obviously be the case that ISIS was responsible.

So, by analogy, if Europeans intentionally spread a communicable disease to Plymouth (regardless of whether or not they believed it would kill the Native Americans through contagion), and it ended up getting spread across the land, it would obviously be the case the Europeans were responsible.

So you would morally blame Christian Europeans for all of the disease deaths of Native Americans. Interesting. I wouldn't go that far. I would only place on those who intentionally (which is documented in several though not large cases) and indifferently (knowing the locals did not have an immunity but coming into contact anyway, which actually happened quite frequently) spreading of the diseases. However even in that case, I don't think one could blame all Christians or Christianity for the crime - just the individuals who acted criminally.

If an ISIS cell intentionally spread a communicable disease to NYC (regardless of whether or not they believed it killed people by it’s smell), and it ended up getting spread across the country, it would obviously be the case that ISIS was responsible.

Let me ask you this: if you have the flu, and go to the mall, school, work, a game, or anywhere else public, and someone else catches the disease, are you civilly (financially) and criminally liable for that? If this person later dies from the disease (say the victim was a vulnerable person for flu, say an infant or a senior citizen, or you infected a mother or child who later spread it to the infant or senior citizen), are you guilty of murder? I think most people would say "no" but I am curious what you think. And would it make a difference if a Muslim did the same thing?

"First, religion was not the cause of the battle of Kaffa. A more compelling reason for the battle was ethnic: the (Turkish) Tatars objected to the Italian slave trade of ethnic Turkish slaves. Moreover there is no evidence whatsoever that the tactic of trying to use disease (as opposed to wood, metal, fire or other means) to conquer the city had any bearing whatsoever on religion."

-Misdirection. Who claimed religion was the cause of the battle? That being said, you refuted yourself because you earlier said that it was not by Muslims, whereas the Turkish Tatars were known Muslims. What's more, they were known to be part of the Mongolian Golden Horde- in some regions, they were the Golden Horde. What you've said in no way disproves that it was Islamic individuals. In fact, you've further proven the point.

BTW- given all the slavery being practiced by the Turks and Muslims in general at the time, they'd hardly have a leg to stand on for anyone doing it to them.

"Third it is not clear at all that this act caused the spread of the disease in the city (it is generally believed one cannot catch the plague from a dead body). More likely rats (the common transmission method) made it inside the city and spread the disease there, much like they did everywhere else there was an outbreak (and, in particular, much as they did to the Mongolian and Tatar forces which were laying siege to the city – according to de Mussis thousands were dying daily from the disease). "

-Theory on your part. Maybe so, maybe not. Still does not disprove an intent to spread it, does it?

"De Mussis also insists the Tatars thought the stench, not the disease, would kill the city inhabitants (i.e., it was designed not as biological war but as olfactory war)."

-I'm sure the inhabitants of Kaffa would forgive them now that they know their true intentions. They were only trying to kill them a different way because they were ignorant of disease transmission (assuming some leftist apologist isn't simply pulling it out of his a**, which it certainly sounds like).

" In this account, the Italian merchants who escaped Kaffa brought it back to Europe with them.Thus the claim of the disease being spread to Europe intentionally, which is the claim you made and to which I responded, is, as I wrote earlier, entirely rubbish."

-Nonsense. They spread it intentionally to the inhabitants of Kaffa. Whether or not the inhabitants of Kaffa fled, spreading it further, you still have this group of Muslims still intentionally spreading it, and causing an outbreak. If an ISIS cell intentionally spread a communicable disease to NYC (regardless of whether or not they believed it killed people by it's smell), and it ended up getting spread across the country, it would obviously be the case that ISIS was responsible.

Misdirection. Who claimed religion was the cause of the battle?

Your claim is that the black plague should be called Muslim plague as you are desperate to condemn Islam. I’m just pointing out that at no point in the spread of the disease was the Muslim faith a factor.

you refuted yourself because you earlier said that it was not by Muslims, whereas the Turkish Tatars were known Muslims.

I wrote Tatars were Muslims. My other point was and is that Islam had nothing to do with the spread of the disease to Europe.

BTW- given all the slavery being practiced by the Turks and Muslims in general at the time, they’d hardly have a leg to stand on for anyone doing it to them.

Christians were also master slave holders/traders, as were Jews, Communists, pagans, etc. And while the US was busy holding a ton of African slaves, I am quite sure they would have been upset if someone was kidnapping White Gerogians and selling them into slavery, don’t you think? And in any case the Tatars were not then slaveholders (they started enslaving Russians several decades after the Kaffa battle).

Theory on your part. Maybe so, maybe not. Still does not disprove an intent to spread it, does it?

First of all when you make any accusation it is your responsibility to prove it, not mine to disprove it. And it’s not my theory, it is the explanation of de Mussis who wrote the account of the battle, without which, we probably would not have even known this battle happened: “[T]hey ordered corpses to be placed in catapults and lobbed into the city in the hope that the intolerable stench would kill everyone inside.”

I’m sure the inhabitants of Kaffa would forgive them now that they know their true intentions.

Again, misdirection. Your ridiculous claim, and I repeat this again as you continue to engage in misdirection and subterfuge, was that Muslims intentionally spread plague to Europe. Hence this point is crucial: the Tatars did not even intentionally spread the plague to the inhabitants of Kaffa – they had no idea their actions would spread the plague. Do you even know what intent means?

Nonsense. They spread it intentionally to the inhabitants of Kaffa. Whether or not the inhabitants of Kaffa fled, spreading it further, you still have this group of Muslims still intentionally spreading it, and causing an outbreak.

Again, you have twisted everything in your obsession to blame something massively evil on Muslims and to try to discredit a religion.

I have established that the diseases first greatly affected the Tatars, killing thousands per day; and that the disease then spread into the city (either by rats entering the city, the most likely case, or, by the Tatars catapulting dead bodies into the city, but, critically, not with the intent to spread the disease). So there was no intent even to spread it to Kaffa (though there was definitely an intent to conquer the city, and the only reason for that is that the slave traders who were enslaving Tatars had holed up in there). Finally I have established that the disease may have been subsequently brought to Europe by those fleeing Kaffa, but there is no evidence whatsoever that (a) the Tatars knew these individuals would escape from them, or (b) that this would cause the disease to spread to Europe (people of that day tended to think such outbreaks were God’s/Allah’s punishment and hence there was no reason to think it would spread to “innocent” people), and beyond that there is no evidence whatsoever they intended for any of this to happen (intent requires both knowledge and the desire that the result occur).

"Your claim is that the black plague should be called Muslim plague as you are desperate to condemn Islam. I’m just pointing out that at no point in the spread of the disease was the Muslim faith a factor."

Over and over, your argument seems to focus on claming that I am somehow desperately trying to attack Muslims. This is 100% in your head. I have used this as an example to again point out that if we’re going to call the diseases that devastated native Americans ‘European diseases’ when inadvertently spread by Europeans, then why not do we not do the same when others, in this case Muslims in the Mongolian Golden Horde, intentionally spread the Plague to a European city which led to an outbreak?

More misdirection on your part, trying to focus away from the original discussion in which you were wrong, by making a straw man argument in claiming that I was really just trying to desperately attack Muslims, and attacking that.

You have established nothing. You use lies, misdirection, and irrational discussion to establish your points. Feel free to write whatever more nonsense you want after this. I'm through with debating against the irrational.

"First, religion was not the cause of the battle of Kaffa. A more compelling reason for the battle was ethnic: the (Turkish) Tatars objected to the Italian slave trade of ethnic Turkish slaves. Moreover there is no evidence whatsoever that the tactic of trying to use disease (as opposed to wood, metal, fire or other means) to conquer the city had any bearing whatsoever on religion."

-Misdirection. Who claimed religion was the cause of the battle? That being said, you refuted yourself because you earlier said that it was not by Muslims, whereas the Turkish Tatars were known Muslims. What's more, they were known to be part of the Mongolian Golden Horde- in some regions, they were the Golden Horde. What you've said in no way disproves that it was Islamic individuals. In fact, you've further proven the point.

BTW- given all the slavery being practiced by the Turks and Muslims in general at the time, they'd hardly have a leg to stand on for anyone doing it to them.

"Third it is not clear at all that this act caused the spread of the disease in the city (it is generally believed one cannot catch the plague from a dead body). More likely rats (the common transmission method) made it inside the city and spread the disease there, much like they did everywhere else there was an outbreak (and, in particular, much as they did to the Mongolian and Tatar forces which were laying siege to the city – according to de Mussis thousands were dying daily from the disease). "

-Theory on your part. Maybe so, maybe not. Still does not disprove an intent to spread it, does it?

"De Mussis also insists the Tatars thought the stench, not the disease, would kill the city inhabitants (i.e., it was designed not as biological war but as olfactory war)."

-I'm sure the inhabitants of Kaffa would forgive them now that they know their true intentions. They were only trying to kill them a different way because they were ignorant of disease transmission (assuming some leftist apologist isn't simply pulling it out of his a**, which it certainly sounds like).

" In this account, the Italian merchants who escaped Kaffa brought it back to Europe with them.Thus the claim of the disease being spread to Europe intentionally, which is the claim you made and to which I responded, is, as I wrote earlier, entirely rubbish."

-Nonsense. They spread it intentionally to the inhabitants of Kaffa. Whether or not the inhabitants of Kaffa fled, spreading it further, you still have this group of Muslims still intentionally spreading it, and causing an outbreak. If an ISIS cell intentionally spread a communicable disease to NYC (regardless of whether or not they believed it killed people by it's smell), and it ended up getting spread across the country, it would obviously be the case that ISIS was responsible.

If an ISIS cell intentionally spread a communicable disease to NYC (regardless of whether or not they believed it killed people by it’s smell), and it ended up getting spread across the country, it would obviously be the case that ISIS was responsible.

So, by analogy, if Europeans intentionally spread a communicable disease to Plymouth (regardless of whether or not they believed it would kill the Native Americans through contagion), and it ended up getting spread across the land, it would obviously be the case the Europeans were responsible.

So you would morally blame Christian Europeans for all of the disease deaths of Native Americans. Interesting. I wouldn’t go that far. I would only place on those who intentionally (which is documented in several though not large cases) and indifferently (knowing the locals did not have an immunity but coming into contact anyway, which actually happened quite frequently) spreading of the diseases. However even in that case, I don’t think one could blame all Christians or Christianity for the crime – just the individuals who acted criminally.

You really need to go and take some classes in basic philosophy and logic.

You go from saying:
"if Europeans intentionally spread a communicable disease to Plymouth (regardless of whether or not they believed it would kill the Native Americans through contagion), and it ended up getting spread across the land, it would obviously be the case the Europeans were responsible."

Directly to:
"So you would morally blame Christian Europeans for all of the disease deaths of Native Americans. Interesting. I wouldn’t go that far."

What's missing? Well, I guess I'll have to fill it in for you. You pull a made-up hypothetical out of thin air (Europeans intentionally spreading diseases at Plymouth to native Americans) and use it to substantiate the real deaths of native Americans.

What's more, you even fail to make sensible comparisons even within your own argument. If I say a hypothetical about ISIS spreading a disease to NYC would make ISIS responsible for the spread of that disease across the US, how is the direct comparison to that saying a hypothetical group of people pulling up in a boat at Plymouth spreading a disease means all Christian Europeans are responsible for all native American disease? The logic simply isn't there in your statements.

And your whole point is a misdirection. Our discussion began over the fact that if we’re going to call the diseases that devastated native Americans ‘European diseases’ when inadvertently spread by Europeans, then why not do we not do the same when others, in this case Muslims in the Mongolian Golden Horde, intentionally spread the Plague to a European city which led to an outbreak? You claimed it never happened. Then, when you found it it did, you started all manner of misdirection of the discussion.

I've read a derivative of that article before. I completely agree with it; Wahabbis are not Sunni Orthodox...but they are Muslims - do you see the difference? Just as I can say Shiah and Ibadi are not Sunni Orthodox...but they are Muslim. Sunnis are the super-majority and have been for centuries (there is no parallel in Christianity) and we have self-defining terms:"All Muslims are guided by the Sunnah, but Sunnis stress it, as well as consensus (ijma; the full name of Sunnis is Ahl al-Sunnah wa'l-Ijma, people of the Sunnah and consensus). "http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e2280

The Wahhabis have broken with consensus on too many issues with the Sunni majority, thus their claims to be part of the Sunnis is lacking. Even so, they are our brothers.

you are approaching it from a theological perspective

Quite so, whether someone is Muslim or not is essentially a theological question - irrespective of the political implications. Declaring one group to be non-Muslim is something I am quite unqualified to do and has profound metaphysical ramifications in the next life if one is wrong.

Takfiris are ... in short, pure evil

Again, not all Wahhabi/Salafis are takfiris. But even with takfiris...if they were pure evil, they would not be able to be swayed away from this ideology, but some can be - they are very misguided. And some are a lost cause. My own teachers, here and in Pakistan, have had success in turning people around and guiding them back to normal, traditional understanding. It takes patience and wisdom, but the Sufis have been doing this for ages. Though I will readily admit, there can also be extremists among the Sufis and violent ones at that. Is it common? No - but they do exist in smaller numbers.

Keep in mind, that this trend first showed its face very, very early on; in the form of Khawarij/Kharijis (https://www.britannica.com/topic/Kharijite) who were uncompromising fanatics who called well-known Companions like the third caliph, Ali (ra), as apostates. They called for his death and eventually assassinated him, but look at how he dictated how we must view them:"The majority [Sunni Orthodox] view takes its cue from 'Ali (ra), who was asked: Are the Khawarij polytheists? He said: 'They flee from polytheism.' Are they hypocrites? He said: 'The hypocrites remember Allah only a little.' Then what are they? He said: 'They are our brothers who transgressed against us (ikhwanuna baghaw 'alayna), so we fought them for their transgression.'" (http://muslimmatters.org/2015/08/24/khawarij-ideology-isis-savagery-part-one/)

Clear cut and simple - if they would lay down their arms and disperse, then whatever is in their hearts is between them and God. Otherwise there are numerous fatwas from top level scholars and institutions calling for the obligation on fighting them - but I have yet to see a fatwa from the same scholars or institutions on fighting Wahabbis in toto.

the House of Saud’s own ideology dictates their own destruction

This is spot on - this is the Achille's heel of the Saudi-Wahabbi alliance. At its core, the uncompromising Khariji nature of the ideology demands purity - it is at its core a political interpretation than a theological one. They have let loose the dogs and the dogs can turn on them at any time - it is a precarious position to be in.

Especially on that last point - you know your stuff!

I think this video from Ustadh Nouman Khan, head of the Bayyinah Institute, hits on the head what is going on especially since the younger generation that has been cut off from its traditional roots and is ready for manipulation and how to combat it:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VitJM_6E74

Peace.

Just a few responses to your (always) thoughtful writings:

Declaring one group to be non-Muslim is something I am quite unqualified to do and has profound metaphysical ramifications in the next life if one is wrong.

These evildoers defame Islam and every Muslim, and they also reject the word of Allah, as Allah prohibits killing innocent people. If someone clearly violates the basic principles on which Islam is built, how can they be a Muslim? It’s like saying, the Saudi monarchy is a “democracy” simply because they claim to believe in “democracy”.

If someone violates the fundamental precepts of an ideology, it is incumbent upon the true believers, in fact it is their duty, to denounce the fakes/frauds and to distance the true ideology from the fakes by rejecting them. Coddling them is complicity. While I respect almost everything you have written, this part I think you are absolutely wrong and in writing it you are elevating and supporting evil, and perhaps you should think about how this will affect you in the afterlife.

As to the video, it was interesting, especially the part about the satanic version of “Islam” not only being very sophisticated in terms of its presentation (many comparisons to “Hollywood” have been made, and we know it is not Muslims that run Hollywood), but showing up first in search results (and we know it is not Muslims that control the search results – it is the same group that controls Hollywood). That proves even further, in case any further proof was needed, who is behind this radical brand of “religion”, and these people have nothing to do with Islam.

Keep in mind, we are rejecting and denouncing them (Daesh and their extremist ilk like Boko Haram), but the vast majority of scholars have simply not come out to declare them out of the fold of Islam. While it would be extremely convenient to do so, it goes against a major doctrine within Sunni Orthodoxy:"They [Muslims] do not brand any Muslim an unbeliever for any grave sin" - as reported in the creed of Imam Abul Hasan Ash'ari (ra)"We do not consider anyone to be a disbeliever on account of sin" - as reported in Fiqh al-Akbar

As the great Imam Abu Hanifah (ra) stated; "To deem a thousand disbelievers Muslim is safer with God than to deem one Muslim a disbeliever."

This is exactly what the Khawarij and the modern-day takfiris reject - they consider us to be sinful and therefore our Islam is nullified. Also, keep in mind, you talking to me has no bearing on this, you will have to convince the qualified scholars and institutions around the world that they should declare these people non-Muslim.

Coddling them is complicity.

Correct, but the Sunni Orthodoxy has declared it obligatory to fight them. It is open-season on Daesh. If you know our creed then you know how serious this declaration is. This is not exactly coddling.

Now as far as Salafis (which is the umbrella group under which Wahabbis fall), then one of the best writings on the subject is from Shaykh Yassir Qadhi (himself an ex-Salafi who did his dissertation on Imam Ibn Taymiyyah [ra]):http://muslimmatters.org/2014/04/22/on-salafi-islam-dr-yasir-qadhi/ - it is a bit of a long read but very comprehensive

we know it is not Muslims that control the search results

You make an excellent point here. Technically, if Google and others wanted, they could simply dedicate a team to develop an algorithm to completely downgrade the search results for these guys and every time they figure a way around it, the team can adjust the code. Google and others can easily dedicate a team for this if they wanted to why haven't they? I can only speculate.

Hollywood

Without going into much detail here - you mentioned satanic. I don't know if you know, but Oliver Stone's son, Sean converted to Islam (as Shiah). He has quite a few interesting videos talking about the fascination in Hollywood with the occult. Rituals, orgies, sacrifices even - very bizarre stuff.

these people have nothing to do with Islam

Even with all I've stated above, yes, I fully agree with this statement they are shedding Muslim and non-Muslim blood with impunity and broken with the consensus norms of our praxis.

"First, religion was not the cause of the battle of Kaffa. A more compelling reason for the battle was ethnic: the (Turkish) Tatars objected to the Italian slave trade of ethnic Turkish slaves. Moreover there is no evidence whatsoever that the tactic of trying to use disease (as opposed to wood, metal, fire or other means) to conquer the city had any bearing whatsoever on religion."

-Misdirection. Who claimed religion was the cause of the battle? That being said, you refuted yourself because you earlier said that it was not by Muslims, whereas the Turkish Tatars were known Muslims. What's more, they were known to be part of the Mongolian Golden Horde- in some regions, they were the Golden Horde. What you've said in no way disproves that it was Islamic individuals. In fact, you've further proven the point.

BTW- given all the slavery being practiced by the Turks and Muslims in general at the time, they'd hardly have a leg to stand on for anyone doing it to them.

"Third it is not clear at all that this act caused the spread of the disease in the city (it is generally believed one cannot catch the plague from a dead body). More likely rats (the common transmission method) made it inside the city and spread the disease there, much like they did everywhere else there was an outbreak (and, in particular, much as they did to the Mongolian and Tatar forces which were laying siege to the city – according to de Mussis thousands were dying daily from the disease). "

-Theory on your part. Maybe so, maybe not. Still does not disprove an intent to spread it, does it?

"De Mussis also insists the Tatars thought the stench, not the disease, would kill the city inhabitants (i.e., it was designed not as biological war but as olfactory war)."

-I'm sure the inhabitants of Kaffa would forgive them now that they know their true intentions. They were only trying to kill them a different way because they were ignorant of disease transmission (assuming some leftist apologist isn't simply pulling it out of his a**, which it certainly sounds like).

" In this account, the Italian merchants who escaped Kaffa brought it back to Europe with them.Thus the claim of the disease being spread to Europe intentionally, which is the claim you made and to which I responded, is, as I wrote earlier, entirely rubbish."

-Nonsense. They spread it intentionally to the inhabitants of Kaffa. Whether or not the inhabitants of Kaffa fled, spreading it further, you still have this group of Muslims still intentionally spreading it, and causing an outbreak. If an ISIS cell intentionally spread a communicable disease to NYC (regardless of whether or not they believed it killed people by it's smell), and it ended up getting spread across the country, it would obviously be the case that ISIS was responsible.

If an ISIS cell intentionally spread a communicable disease to NYC (regardless of whether or not they believed it killed people by it’s smell), and it ended up getting spread across the country, it would obviously be the case that ISIS was responsible.

Let me ask you this: if you have the flu, and go to the mall, school, work, a game, or anywhere else public, and someone else catches the disease, are you civilly (financially) and criminally liable for that? If this person later dies from the disease (say the victim was a vulnerable person for flu, say an infant or a senior citizen, or you infected a mother or child who later spread it to the infant or senior citizen), are you guilty of murder? I think most people would say “no” but I am curious what you think. And would it make a difference if a Muslim did the same thing?

What is it about admitting that a major army intentionally trying to infect civilians with a deadly disease and causing an outbreak is something entirely different than when a person has the flu and inadvertently infects another with it?

Obviously, it makes no difference if a Turk or a Texan inadvertently infects another with the flu. You just misdirect these discussions, because you have no leg to stand on for your points.

Interestingly, my discussion here began over the fact that if we're going to call the diseases that devastated native Americans 'European diseases' when inadvertently spread by Europeans, then why not do we not do the same when others, in this case Muslims in the Mongolian Golden Horde, intentionally spread the Plague to a European city which led to an outbreak? You now seem to be arguing that intent to spread the disease should make a difference in blame, which strengthens my point all the more.

You can certainly point out to me any cases of pre-modern Christian or Western societies that allowed Muslims or Jews to attain the same – I would love to see them

Simple. Most European nations had Jewish populations with more than a few attaining positions of influence in trade, commerce and banking. They were expelled from most Europeans nations for various allegations ranging from ritual murder to sharp business practices and usury and whether or not this was deserved is beyond the scope of this debate. But they often were, at minimum, at least as successful in European Christian nations as their brethren residing in Muslim ruled nations.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/anti-Semitism/Anti-Semitism-in-medieval-Europe

Muslims were almost a complete non-entity in medieval Europe with the exception of Spain which they invaded and ruled for a long period.

As I said, this is by design – why would one expect a land governed by Islam to act as a secular state in this regard and not give official support to it over other religions – the idea is baffling.

No problem, but don't forget the cacophony and cries of "Islamophobia" from organized Muslim groups in America and Muslim nations when America and Europe propose sensible steps to curb or reverse Muslim immigration or surveil them to thwart terrorist attacks. Muslims demand equal rights in the diaspora but rarely extend equal rights to non-Muslims in Muslim ruled nations. This is pure hypocrisy and neither America nor any Western nation was intended to be a haven for all the world's races and religions which is a recipe for disaster and is an injustice to the founding European stock.

Best thing Western governments can do is not destabilize the governments and institutions that are protecting them

Totally agree. U.S. foreign policy is a mess (mostly be design) and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, and the ongoing attempted overthrow of Bashar Assad and who knows what else will forever be a dark stain on this nation's history. All to remake the Middle East in Israel's image and likeness.

Working on it. To lump Islam with a relatively recent heterodox doctrine and all the troubles it is causing (mostly within Muslim lands) seems silly. You can ask the British why they helped support it and helped it rise to prominence after the Ottomans had crushed it.

I don't recall lumping Islam with Wahhabism. Damn the Brits for aiding it in its formative years, but the Saudis are the chief disseminators of the Wahhabist creed and have been for a long time.

Of course not, but I was talking about the ethos of the society as a whole. I specifically asked in the case of Napoleon – if he had said; hey guys, these guys won’t allow preaching of Christianity in their lands let’s go fight for it, who’s with me? But rather, he said; we need to secure profitable trade rights for France and the Ottomans are in the way, who’s with me?

Ok, I may have misunderstood you and thought you were implying that only major figures in Christian/European history were preoccupied with material gain and less with spiritual salvation. But you are correct, a war to allow preaching of Christianity in faraway lands would not have inspired anyone during Napoleon's time save for maybe a handful. Even some crusading armies lost their zeal and turned back half way to the holy land as in the case of Frederick I of Barbarossa's army.

LOL! Are you seriously arguing that the man lived a luxurious life??!! He died with his armor on loan to a Jew for a sack of wheat he didn’t have money for

I don't recall saying Muhammed live a luxurious life; only that the historical record, even Muslim sources, record Muhammed and the first Muslims raiding caravans and it would be a little naive to think it was all done for altruistic reasons.

You seem to think I have some air-brushed view of Muslims – I don’t. I know quite well that Ghaznavids raided and looted many Hindu temples in India. I also know enough about my religion to know that this kind of behavior is not sanctioned by it.

Again, I did not think I implied that as from our previous exchanges and this one you've been respectful, honest and debate in good faith (unlike a few people on Unz) which I always appreciate.

It is a bit surprising to me that you are willing to see the forced conversions of Muslims and Jews (and their repression under the Inquisition) and the eventual expulsion of all Moriscos (whether they were sincere Christians or not – http://www.brill.com/products/book/expulsion-moriscos-spain) and Jews in such context and simply call it a failure to reach an accord – whereas you are not able to see the ‘context’ in the Muslim side of history. That’s OK – the Ottomans welcomed them into the Muslim lands and even sent the imperial navy to help them:

That's not quite fair. The Muslim occupiers of Al-Andalus were not always tolerant or kind to Christians contrary to popular, PC wisdom.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1610170954/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=1SRE8LSXPZOA&coliid=I3AQF1W9JNNEP4
https://www.amazon.com/Isabella-Spain-William-Thomas-Walsh-ebook/dp/B01JHP4H0C/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1475021230&sr=1-1&keywords=the+last+crusader+isabella+of+spain

Therefore, after more than 700 years of struggle, I personally can't blame the Spanish Christians for harboring a deep distrust of the remaining Muslim and Moriscos as well as Jews who often assisted Muslims throughout the occupation. Keep in mind that this expulsion was far milder than what the Ottoman Turks meted out to the Christian Armenians in 1894 and again in 1915 where 400K and 1.5 million, respectively, were slaughtered by the Turks. You probably see things a little differently and that is ok.

For my part, I am able to see the high and low marks of Christian (and European) civilization and history. Sometimes they reached very high moral ideals and sometimes they were tyrannical. As you said, context is everything.

And I'd like to think I'm a little more objective than you think I am regarding Islam. The sack of the advanced Islamic civilization in Baghdad in 1258 and the slaughter of its inhabitants by the Mongol hordes will go down as one of the greatest tragedies in world history in my opinion. But the friction, conflict and contrast between Islamic and European societies throughout history is hard to ignore and new chapters are now being written that may not end well for either party.

Hey KenH,

First off – I can see I misinterpreted some of your statements – so I beg your pardon on that. To commence…

at least as successful in European Christian nations as their brethren residing in Muslim ruled nations

No problem there, I was just asking for examples of parallels of positions where non-Muslims were barred from holding; governorship, military command, head-of-state and the like. Those same positions were open to Jews and Christians in Muslim lands and often by necessity – especially the early Arab conquerors had no experience in running a social organization as complex as the Sassanid Empire. Harun Rahid’s son famously stateed, “The Persians ruled for a thousand years and did not need us Arabs even for a day. We have been ruling them for one or two centuries and cannot do without them for an hour.” It was this way with the Byzantine Empire as well.

This is correct, because this is the legal structure upon which a secular state is built. They are asking for these rights upon its own terms, according to its principles and legal framework which were those that were advertised when we first opted to come here – otherwise we may not have. Keep in mind, we are fairly small in numbers, so one can simply ignore our outcries when we ask not to be spied upon, but I have a hunch that many other people will decry this kind of spying, not because they like us, but because of the ‘slippery slope’ of ushering in a new era of Cointelpro. If the majority of the populations in Europe and America do not want to extend equal rights to everyone, that is fine. It would actually be hypocritical for Muslims to stand in the way. Just get the super-majorities going that you need to enact changes to the Constitution like adding exceptions to “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” As far as non-Muslims in Muslim nations, they should be accorded freedom to practice religion and keep to their customs and be protected in their life and property and honor as per Islamic principles. Muslims do not accept them running the country or being able to denigrate our faith in public – otherwise ridiculous things like this happen (http://divine-interventions.com/religioustoys.php) – not…a…chance…we could care less if we are called closed-minded. I personally think this is quite fair and not oppressive.

Non-Muslims have always had the right to petition for improved circumstances (sometimes they were heard and sometimes ignored – depends on who was in charge and the merits of their complaints), there are instances recorded by their own people like Coptic monks that wrote that Amr ibn al-As (ra) replaced the administrator over the Copts because they complained he was being oppressive with the amount of jizya he collected.

the Saudis are the chief disseminators of the Wahhabist creed and have been for a long time

Yes, but who helped them secure the oil wealth that they’ve used to bankroll this project and who lets them fund mosques and foundations in the West. I understand the Europe and US value freedom of religion, but that does not mean they must always allow foreign funding of religious institutions.

it was all done for altruistic reasons

It wasn’t, it was done to deprive Meccans of the ability to fund their war effort – which was quite in display during the battles of Uhud and Khandaq. The only altruism was how spoils were distributed; in helping the poor, destitute, etc. It was as altruistic as the Continental Navy’s actions against Imperial Britain – such is war.
“The main goal of the navy was to intercept shipments of British matériel and generally disrupt British maritime commercial operations.”

One thing to note about that book – I listened to an interview with its author. He is definitely an academic, but his whole premise is wrong. He is coming at it from a completely ahistoric and leftist perspective. His assumption is; well I heard all this great stuff about Andalusia being a paradise so I checked it out and – whoa – these guys were taking jizya and not allowing churches to be built as high as mosques, etc. But this was par for the course in Islamic administration – he just hadn’t come across it before. So I agree with the title; if you thought it was ‘paradise’ you will certainly find that it is a myth. But, In lieu of all the happenings after the Reconquista – torturous Inquisition, mass expulsion, etc. not to mention the on-again-off-again forced baptisms of the Visigoths prior to Muslim invasion:
“Even that last vestige of toleration of Judaism evaporated in 638 CE when the Sixth Council of Toledo reaffirmed the policy of forcibly baptizing all Iberian Jews. In fact, Toledo VI went far beyond Sisbut’s policy, not only advocating mandatory baptism, but declaring that the king’s right to rule was dependent on his working to eradicate Judaism…”

And you are absolutely right about what I have often referred to as the ‘hyper-violent’ stage of the Ottoman Empire as it was being rolled up and secular Turkish nationalists had taken helm of the ship. It is a very shameful part of our history and one that will take some time to heal. The Turks may have had a right to militarily defend their borders, as any empire would, but the deplorable actions of indiscriminate violence against thousands and thousands of innocents has zero justification. I don’t see things differently on this point at all – they will have to stand up before God and answer, there is no way I’m willing to answer for trying to vindicate that kind of butchery.

I’m a little more objective than you think I am regarding Islam

Again, my apologies on this, you certainly have made very balanced statements and acknowledged factual points when cited. With other people, it’s like hitting one’s head against a wall. And on your last point, this is absolutely true – which is why sincere and fair-minded dialogue needs to be encouraged – far too much is at stake.

I like how the Meccans are regarded here as the victims when they expelled the Muslims and looted their belongings and dwellings that they left behind. This is normal warfare of the siege and interdiction variety to cripple the economic capability of a people to wage war – the US torpedoed anything leaving the Japanese harbors in WW2. You can read the works of Prof. David Nicolle to see if this was a departure from the norms of medieval warfare tactics.

Muhammed and his fellow Muslims raiding the caravans of Mecca and enriching themselves with the booty is not necessarily analogous to the U.S. sinking Japanese military and merchant vessels since in the case of the merchant vessel any cargo of value would have sunk with the ship - the U.S. would not have gained anything tangible except hindering Japan's economic capability to wage war and deliver war material to its soldiers. Naturally, sinking or damaging military vessels impedes an enemy's military capacity to wage warfare on the seas.

The Japanese did the same thing to the U.S. and in fact drew first blood shortly after Pearl Harbor off the coast of California, so this was not a one sided affair and I'm not aware that it contravened any accepted rules of warfare that existed at the time. In fact, all sides engaged in this practice although Soviet Russia committed an atrocity by sinking the Wilhelm Gustlof which was carrying 7000 war refugees, mostly women and children.

Muhammad's motive was revenge and enrichment while in WWII sinking an enemy's vessels was done to achieve military objectives in the broader context of a protracted military campaign.....revenge and lust for booty didn't enter in to the picture. These operations did not enrich the men taking part in them or lead to an increase in the national treasury of nation X when they sunk a vessel (or vessels) of nation Y.

Declaring one group to be non-Muslim is something I am quite unqualified to do and has profound metaphysical ramifications in the next life if one is wrong.

These evildoers defame Islam and every Muslim, and they also reject the word of Allah, as Allah prohibits killing innocent people. If someone clearly violates the basic principles on which Islam is built, how can they be a Muslim? It's like saying, the Saudi monarchy is a "democracy" simply because they claim to believe in "democracy".

If someone violates the fundamental precepts of an ideology, it is incumbent upon the true believers, in fact it is their duty, to denounce the fakes/frauds and to distance the true ideology from the fakes by rejecting them. Coddling them is complicity. While I respect almost everything you have written, this part I think you are absolutely wrong and in writing it you are elevating and supporting evil, and perhaps you should think about how this will affect you in the afterlife.

As to the video, it was interesting, especially the part about the satanic version of "Islam" not only being very sophisticated in terms of its presentation (many comparisons to "Hollywood" have been made, and we know it is not Muslims that run Hollywood), but showing up first in search results (and we know it is not Muslims that control the search results - it is the same group that controls Hollywood). That proves even further, in case any further proof was needed, who is behind this radical brand of "religion", and these people have nothing to do with Islam.

Dear CalDre,

Keep in mind, we are rejecting and denouncing them (Daesh and their extremist ilk like Boko Haram), but the vast majority of scholars have simply not come out to declare them out of the fold of Islam. While it would be extremely convenient to do so, it goes against a major doctrine within Sunni Orthodoxy:
“They [Muslims] do not brand any Muslim an unbeliever for any grave sin” – as reported in the creed of Imam Abul Hasan Ash’ari (ra)
“We do not consider anyone to be a disbeliever on account of sin” – as reported in Fiqh al-Akbar

As the great Imam Abu Hanifah (ra) stated; “To deem a thousand disbelievers Muslim is safer with God than to deem one Muslim a disbeliever.”

This is exactly what the Khawarij and the modern-day takfiris reject – they consider us to be sinful and therefore our Islam is nullified. Also, keep in mind, you talking to me has no bearing on this, you will have to convince the qualified scholars and institutions around the world that they should declare these people non-Muslim.

Coddling them is complicity.

Correct, but the Sunni Orthodoxy has declared it obligatory to fight them. It is open-season on Daesh. If you know our creed then you know how serious this declaration is. This is not exactly coddling.

Now as far as Salafis (which is the umbrella group under which Wahabbis fall), then one of the best writings on the subject is from Shaykh Yassir Qadhi (himself an ex-Salafi who did his dissertation on Imam Ibn Taymiyyah [ra]):http://muslimmatters.org/2014/04/22/on-salafi-islam-dr-yasir-qadhi/ – it is a bit of a long read but very comprehensive

we know it is not Muslims that control the search results

You make an excellent point here. Technically, if Google and others wanted, they could simply dedicate a team to develop an algorithm to completely downgrade the search results for these guys and every time they figure a way around it, the team can adjust the code. Google and others can easily dedicate a team for this if they wanted to why haven’t they? I can only speculate.

Hollywood

Without going into much detail here – you mentioned satanic. I don’t know if you know, but Oliver Stone’s son, Sean converted to Islam (as Shiah). He has quite a few interesting videos talking about the fascination in Hollywood with the occult. Rituals, orgies, sacrifices even – very bizarre stuff.

these people have nothing to do with Islam

Even with all I’ve stated above, yes, I fully agree with this statement they are shedding Muslim and non-Muslim blood with impunity and broken with the consensus norms of our praxis.

“They [Muslims] do not brand any Muslim an unbeliever for any grave sin” – as reported in the creed of Imam Abul Hasan Ash’ari (ra)“We do not consider anyone to be a disbeliever on account of sin” – as reported in Fiqh al-Akbar

I see it differently - it is not a question of sin but of theology. The Wahhabists do not feel guilt for enslaving and raping women, beheading Shi'as, or detonating a bomb in the middle of a group of women and children. They do it with pride, document their atrocities, and pompously display their crimes to the world. No, for them it is not a sin, but their religion. And by accepting them as Muslims, you validate that their acts are Islamic.

It is very different if, say, a Muslim is gay and engages in sodomy but realizes it is a sin and even feels guilt for it. This person would never make a video of his act and post it on the internet with pride, saying that he represents true Islam and those who engage in heterosexual sex are heretics who must be killed. And even if he did all that, the violation would still not be nearly as egregious as that of the Takfiris.

Under your interpretation of "sin", anyone can be "Muslim" simply if they claim to be. At that point, being "Muslim" means nothing; I might not even believe in Allah and think the Prophet is an evil man, of whom I make sinful depictions of him such as on that sex website you linked recently, and still call myself Muslim, and would you then agree?

What Wahhabists do is not some minor deviation from Islam - they are attempting to destroy it. They are anti-Islam, it's negation. But I repeat myself....

As to Google, do not labor under the illusion that they use some abstract "fair" algorithm to place search results. It is entirely political. That the Wahhabist searches come up first is intentional, make no mistake about this. The owners of Google are among the Illuminati that is working overtime to foment a "Clash of Civilizations" between Muslims and the "West".

The Illuminati (in the form of the House of Windsor) is the group that placed the House of Saud with their anti-Islam ideology in control of Mecca in the first place - and the Illuminati have thereafter been their most ardent and consistent supporters in terms of wealth, weapons and otherwise. As we know, the House of Saud uses this wealth to spread their satanic cult worldwide under the (false!!) banner of Islam. Concurrently the Illuminati are waging a number of destabilizing and radicalizing wars of conquest and aggression in the Muslim world - from the creation and steady expansion of Israel to the senseless wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, etc. - in order to radicalize many Muslims with facts on the ground in addition to the ideological radicalization preached worldwide by their vassal Saudi Arabia.

At the same time this same group is opening the borders of Europe to these radicalized fake "Muslims" and encouraging "terrorist" attacks - indeed in my opinion sponsoring and controlling many of them.

I think it is beyond obvious that the Illuminati are setting the table for WW III, which they will blame on religion (particularly Islam, as it is, more or less, the only religion left standing and the one obviously being currently used to create international distress) and nationalism with the goal of establishing a global totalitarian government with a one-world secularist religion.

It is with this background that I view Wahhabism not as a religious movement, but as a political movement, the anti-Islam, or, the destroyer of Islam.

Unless the world wakes up and acts decisively relatively quickly, the Illuminati will succeed.

Keep in mind, we are rejecting and denouncing them (Daesh and their extremist ilk like Boko Haram), but the vast majority of scholars have simply not come out to declare them out of the fold of Islam. While it would be extremely convenient to do so, it goes against a major doctrine within Sunni Orthodoxy:"They [Muslims] do not brand any Muslim an unbeliever for any grave sin" - as reported in the creed of Imam Abul Hasan Ash'ari (ra)"We do not consider anyone to be a disbeliever on account of sin" - as reported in Fiqh al-Akbar

As the great Imam Abu Hanifah (ra) stated; "To deem a thousand disbelievers Muslim is safer with God than to deem one Muslim a disbeliever."

This is exactly what the Khawarij and the modern-day takfiris reject - they consider us to be sinful and therefore our Islam is nullified. Also, keep in mind, you talking to me has no bearing on this, you will have to convince the qualified scholars and institutions around the world that they should declare these people non-Muslim.

Coddling them is complicity.

Correct, but the Sunni Orthodoxy has declared it obligatory to fight them. It is open-season on Daesh. If you know our creed then you know how serious this declaration is. This is not exactly coddling.

Now as far as Salafis (which is the umbrella group under which Wahabbis fall), then one of the best writings on the subject is from Shaykh Yassir Qadhi (himself an ex-Salafi who did his dissertation on Imam Ibn Taymiyyah [ra]):http://muslimmatters.org/2014/04/22/on-salafi-islam-dr-yasir-qadhi/ - it is a bit of a long read but very comprehensive

we know it is not Muslims that control the search results

You make an excellent point here. Technically, if Google and others wanted, they could simply dedicate a team to develop an algorithm to completely downgrade the search results for these guys and every time they figure a way around it, the team can adjust the code. Google and others can easily dedicate a team for this if they wanted to why haven't they? I can only speculate.

Hollywood

Without going into much detail here - you mentioned satanic. I don't know if you know, but Oliver Stone's son, Sean converted to Islam (as Shiah). He has quite a few interesting videos talking about the fascination in Hollywood with the occult. Rituals, orgies, sacrifices even - very bizarre stuff.

these people have nothing to do with Islam

Even with all I've stated above, yes, I fully agree with this statement they are shedding Muslim and non-Muslim blood with impunity and broken with the consensus norms of our praxis.

Peace.

“They [Muslims] do not brand any Muslim an unbeliever for any grave sin” – as reported in the creed of Imam Abul Hasan Ash’ari (ra)
“We do not consider anyone to be a disbeliever on account of sin” – as reported in Fiqh al-Akbar

I see it differently – it is not a question of sin but of theology. The Wahhabists do not feel guilt for enslaving and raping women, beheading Shi’as, or detonating a bomb in the middle of a group of women and children. They do it with pride, document their atrocities, and pompously display their crimes to the world. No, for them it is not a sin, but their religion. And by accepting them as Muslims, you validate that their acts are Islamic.

It is very different if, say, a Muslim is gay and engages in sodomy but realizes it is a sin and even feels guilt for it. This person would never make a video of his act and post it on the internet with pride, saying that he represents true Islam and those who engage in heterosexual sex are heretics who must be killed. And even if he did all that, the violation would still not be nearly as egregious as that of the Takfiris.

Under your interpretation of “sin”, anyone can be “Muslim” simply if they claim to be. At that point, being “Muslim” means nothing; I might not even believe in Allah and think the Prophet is an evil man, of whom I make sinful depictions of him such as on that sex website you linked recently, and still call myself Muslim, and would you then agree?

What Wahhabists do is not some minor deviation from Islam – they are attempting to destroy it. They are anti-Islam, it’s negation. But I repeat myself….

As to Google, do not labor under the illusion that they use some abstract “fair” algorithm to place search results. It is entirely political. That the Wahhabist searches come up first is intentional, make no mistake about this. The owners of Google are among the Illuminati that is working overtime to foment a “Clash of Civilizations” between Muslims and the “West”.

The Illuminati (in the form of the House of Windsor) is the group that placed the House of Saud with their anti-Islam ideology in control of Mecca in the first place – and the Illuminati have thereafter been their most ardent and consistent supporters in terms of wealth, weapons and otherwise. As we know, the House of Saud uses this wealth to spread their satanic cult worldwide under the (false!!) banner of Islam. Concurrently the Illuminati are waging a number of destabilizing and radicalizing wars of conquest and aggression in the Muslim world – from the creation and steady expansion of Israel to the senseless wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Pakistan, etc. – in order to radicalize many Muslims with facts on the ground in addition to the ideological radicalization preached worldwide by their vassal Saudi Arabia.

At the same time this same group is opening the borders of Europe to these radicalized fake “Muslims” and encouraging “terrorist” attacks – indeed in my opinion sponsoring and controlling many of them.

I think it is beyond obvious that the Illuminati are setting the table for WW III, which they will blame on religion (particularly Islam, as it is, more or less, the only religion left standing and the one obviously being currently used to create international distress) and nationalism with the goal of establishing a global totalitarian government with a one-world secularist religion.

It is with this background that I view Wahhabism not as a religious movement, but as a political movement, the anti-Islam, or, the destroyer of Islam.

Unless the world wakes up and acts decisively relatively quickly, the Illuminati will succeed.

by accepting them as Muslims, you validate that their acts are Islamic

No, because we can consider people Muslims who post pictures of their drinking escapades in Ft. Lauderdale on the Facebook pages without any shame. Does not make drinking Islamic – makes them ‘fujjaar’ – transgressors or reprobates.

I might not even believe in Allah and think the Prophet is an evil man

This is what takes one out of Islam – negation through belief – not faulty praxis. As the Muslim scholars have stated; what takes one out of Islam is the negation of the belief that brought one into it.

Again, I agree with a lot of what you say and critics of Islam are certainly having a field day with Daesh around, but I do not make that call – I am unqualified. Again, another difference between Sunnis and takfiris like Daesh – they feel they can pass judgements on any matter, regardless of whether or not they are qualified.

the only religion left standing

Not sure about that, but it does seem to be the only one that takes itself seriously – maybe that is what you meant…

Does not make drinking Islamic – makes them ‘fujjaar’ – transgressors or reprobates.

But they are not claiming that drinking is Islamic and that it is the duty of Muslims to drink! You seriously cannot tell the difference? Not to mention that drinking is a minor transgression, completely inconsequential, compared to the transgressions of the Takfiris.

So, yes, by not rejecting Wahhabists you validate that ISIS is Islamic and thereby debase your own religion. They do not believe they are transgressing - they believe you are.

This is what takes one out of Islam – negation through belief – not faulty praxis.

Which describes Wahhabists 100%. It is their (anti-Islamic) belief system that is the core problem, not their actions in violation of their belief.

I am unqualified.

Shi'as have no problem pointing out these Wahhabists are not Muslim. Yet Sunnis spend far more time attacking (peaceful) Shi'a than Wahhabists (and not only the Saudis).

My point is: if Sunni scholars are too cowardly to condemn Wahhabism and accept it as Islam, then the destruction of Sunni Islam (perhaps all Islam) will follow. The world does not need any ideology or religion that is as intolerant and brutal as Wahhabism, and if Sunni "scholars' (cowards) want to extend their hand to Wahhabists and keep them inside their "Sunni" tent, let the flame consume them all, for whatever tent Wahhabists reside in will be burned down. Wahhabism will be destroyed, one way or another, the question is only: what is the collateral damage? Who will be destroyed with it?

by accepting them as Muslims, you validate that their acts are Islamic

No, because we can consider people Muslims who post pictures of their drinking escapades in Ft. Lauderdale on the Facebook pages without any shame. Does not make drinking Islamic - makes them 'fujjaar' - transgressors or reprobates.

I might not even believe in Allah and think the Prophet is an evil man

This is what takes one out of Islam - negation through belief - not faulty praxis. As the Muslim scholars have stated; what takes one out of Islam is the negation of the belief that brought one into it.

Again, I agree with a lot of what you say and critics of Islam are certainly having a field day with Daesh around, but I do not make that call - I am unqualified. Again, another difference between Sunnis and takfiris like Daesh - they feel they can pass judgements on any matter, regardless of whether or not they are qualified.

the only religion left standing

Not sure about that, but it does seem to be the only one that takes itself seriously - maybe that is what you meant...

Peace.

Does not make drinking Islamic – makes them ‘fujjaar’ – transgressors or reprobates.

But they are not claiming that drinking is Islamic and that it is the duty of Muslims to drink! You seriously cannot tell the difference? Not to mention that drinking is a minor transgression, completely inconsequential, compared to the transgressions of the Takfiris.

So, yes, by not rejecting Wahhabists you validate that ISIS is Islamic and thereby debase your own religion. They do not believe they are transgressing – they believe you are.

This is what takes one out of Islam – negation through belief – not faulty praxis.

Which describes Wahhabists 100%. It is their (anti-Islamic) belief system that is the core problem, not their actions in violation of their belief.

I am unqualified.

Shi’as have no problem pointing out these Wahhabists are not Muslim. Yet Sunnis spend far more time attacking (peaceful) Shi’a than Wahhabists (and not only the Saudis).

My point is: if Sunni scholars are too cowardly to condemn Wahhabism and accept it as Islam, then the destruction of Sunni Islam (perhaps all Islam) will follow. The world does not need any ideology or religion that is as intolerant and brutal as Wahhabism, and if Sunni “scholars’ (cowards) want to extend their hand to Wahhabists and keep them inside their “Sunni” tent, let the flame consume them all, for whatever tent Wahhabists reside in will be burned down. Wahhabism will be destroyed, one way or another, the question is only: what is the collateral damage? Who will be destroyed with it?

if Sunni “scholars’ (cowards) want to extend their hand to Wahhabists and keep them inside their “Sunni” tent

You keep saying this although I keep negating that they are considered Sunni - oh well, I can only make the point so many times. And you say by not declaring Wahhabis as unbelievers, that means I am then validating Daesh even though I clearly stated that Sunni scholars have declared war on Daesh (i.e. shooting them and bombing them is permissible) - I don't understand the exact logic, but that's fine.

I will leave you with this, the Amman Message in Jordan was signed by the highest level authorities from both the Sunni and Shiah scholarship. It stated:
"They specifically recognized the validity of all 8 Mathhabs (legal schools) of Sunni, Shi’a and Ibadhi Islam; of traditional Islamic Theology (Ash’arism); of Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), and of true Salafi thought, and came to a precise definition of who is a Muslim."
http://ammanmessage.com/

This was signed by Ayatollah Sistani and other high ranking marja's of the Shiah community. It was also signed by high-ranking moderate Wahhabi/Salafis like:
Shaykh Abdullah ibn Mani (http://www.alifta.net/Fatawa/MoftyDetails.aspx?languagename=en&ID=6). It is an affirmation of understanding between Shiah and moderate Wahhabi/Salafis. We, as Muslims, have been trying to build bridges to prevent more bloodshed. It is alright if you don't understand - this is a duty of brotherhood which comes with being part of the ummah of Muhammad (pbuh).

First off - I can see I misinterpreted some of your statements - so I beg your pardon on that. To commence...

at least as successful in European Christian nations as their brethren residing in Muslim ruled nations

No problem there, I was just asking for examples of parallels of positions where non-Muslims were barred from holding; governorship, military command, head-of-state and the like. Those same positions were open to Jews and Christians in Muslim lands and often by necessity - especially the early Arab conquerors had no experience in running a social organization as complex as the Sassanid Empire. Harun Rahid's son famously stateed, "The Persians ruled for a thousand years and did not need us Arabs even for a day. We have been ruling them for one or two centuries and cannot do without them for an hour." It was this way with the Byzantine Empire as well.

This is correct, because this is the legal structure upon which a secular state is built. They are asking for these rights upon its own terms, according to its principles and legal framework which were those that were advertised when we first opted to come here - otherwise we may not have. Keep in mind, we are fairly small in numbers, so one can simply ignore our outcries when we ask not to be spied upon, but I have a hunch that many other people will decry this kind of spying, not because they like us, but because of the 'slippery slope' of ushering in a new era of Cointelpro. If the majority of the populations in Europe and America do not want to extend equal rights to everyone, that is fine. It would actually be hypocritical for Muslims to stand in the way. Just get the super-majorities going that you need to enact changes to the Constitution like adding exceptions to "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." As far as non-Muslims in Muslim nations, they should be accorded freedom to practice religion and keep to their customs and be protected in their life and property and honor as per Islamic principles. Muslims do not accept them running the country or being able to denigrate our faith in public - otherwise ridiculous things like this happen (http://divine-interventions.com/religioustoys.php) - not...a...chance...we could care less if we are called closed-minded. I personally think this is quite fair and not oppressive.

Non-Muslims have always had the right to petition for improved circumstances (sometimes they were heard and sometimes ignored - depends on who was in charge and the merits of their complaints), there are instances recorded by their own people like Coptic monks that wrote that Amr ibn al-As (ra) replaced the administrator over the Copts because they complained he was being oppressive with the amount of jizya he collected.

the Saudis are the chief disseminators of the Wahhabist creed and have been for a long time

Yes, but who helped them secure the oil wealth that they've used to bankroll this project and who lets them fund mosques and foundations in the West. I understand the Europe and US value freedom of religion, but that does not mean they must always allow foreign funding of religious institutions.

it was all done for altruistic reasons

It wasn't, it was done to deprive Meccans of the ability to fund their war effort - which was quite in display during the battles of Uhud and Khandaq. The only altruism was how spoils were distributed; in helping the poor, destitute, etc. It was as altruistic as the Continental Navy's actions against Imperial Britain - such is war.
"The main goal of the navy was to intercept shipments of British matériel and generally disrupt British maritime commercial operations."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Navy

One thing to note about that book - I listened to an interview with its author. He is definitely an academic, but his whole premise is wrong. He is coming at it from a completely ahistoric and leftist perspective. His assumption is; well I heard all this great stuff about Andalusia being a paradise so I checked it out and - whoa - these guys were taking jizya and not allowing churches to be built as high as mosques, etc. But this was par for the course in Islamic administration - he just hadn't come across it before. So I agree with the title; if you thought it was 'paradise' you will certainly find that it is a myth. But, In lieu of all the happenings after the Reconquista - torturous Inquisition, mass expulsion, etc. not to mention the on-again-off-again forced baptisms of the Visigoths prior to Muslim invasion:
"Even that last vestige of toleration of Judaism evaporated in 638 CE when the Sixth Council of Toledo reaffirmed the policy of forcibly baptizing all Iberian Jews. In fact, Toledo VI went far beyond Sisbut’s policy, not only advocating mandatory baptism, but declaring that the king’s right to rule was dependent on his working to eradicate Judaism..."
https://www.pdx.edu/honors/sites/www.pdx.edu.honors/files/11.%20Phillips%20Essay.pdf

In context it may well have been a 'paradise'.

And you are absolutely right about what I have often referred to as the 'hyper-violent' stage of the Ottoman Empire as it was being rolled up and secular Turkish nationalists had taken helm of the ship. It is a very shameful part of our history and one that will take some time to heal. The Turks may have had a right to militarily defend their borders, as any empire would, but the deplorable actions of indiscriminate violence against thousands and thousands of innocents has zero justification. I don't see things differently on this point at all - they will have to stand up before God and answer, there is no way I'm willing to answer for trying to vindicate that kind of butchery.

I’m a little more objective than you think I am regarding Islam

Again, my apologies on this, you certainly have made very balanced statements and acknowledged factual points when cited. With other people, it's like hitting one's head against a wall. And on your last point, this is absolutely true - which is why sincere and fair-minded dialogue needs to be encouraged - far too much is at stake.

Peace.

Fair enough, but there was one point you raised that I overlooked:

I like how the Meccans are regarded here as the victims when they expelled the Muslims and looted their belongings and dwellings that they left behind. This is normal warfare of the siege and interdiction variety to cripple the economic capability of a people to wage war – the US torpedoed anything leaving the Japanese harbors in WW2. You can read the works of Prof. David Nicolle to see if this was a departure from the norms of medieval warfare tactics.

Muhammed and his fellow Muslims raiding the caravans of Mecca and enriching themselves with the booty is not necessarily analogous to the U.S. sinking Japanese military and merchant vessels since in the case of the merchant vessel any cargo of value would have sunk with the ship – the U.S. would not have gained anything tangible except hindering Japan’s economic capability to wage war and deliver war material to its soldiers. Naturally, sinking or damaging military vessels impedes an enemy’s military capacity to wage warfare on the seas.

The Japanese did the same thing to the U.S. and in fact drew first blood shortly after Pearl Harbor off the coast of California, so this was not a one sided affair and I’m not aware that it contravened any accepted rules of warfare that existed at the time. In fact, all sides engaged in this practice although Soviet Russia committed an atrocity by sinking the Wilhelm Gustlof which was carrying 7000 war refugees, mostly women and children.

Muhammad’s motive was revenge and enrichment while in WWII sinking an enemy’s vessels was done to achieve military objectives in the broader context of a protracted military campaign…..revenge and lust for booty didn’t enter in to the picture. These operations did not enrich the men taking part in them or lead to an increase in the national treasury of nation X when they sunk a vessel (or vessels) of nation Y.

This certainly wasn't either. Let's see the first blood the Meccans had spilt:1) Tortured and killed some of the Muslims who had no tribal protection2) Drove the Muslims out of their home city (Mecca) to Madinah3) Attempted to assassinate the Prophet (pbuh) on multiple occassions and even hunt him down on his emigration4) Looted the homes and belongings that they left behind4) Once the Muslims had been given refuge in Madinah, the Meccan elite sent this little note to the elite of Madinah who had given them refuge (and before the battle of Badr):“You gave protection to our companion. We swear by God, you should fight or expel him, or we shall come to you in full force, until we kill your warriors and appropriate your women...“ (Reported in Abu-Dawud Book 19, Hadith 2998)

So the Muslims gave them some good game after God gave them permission.

I’m not aware that it contravened any accepted rules of warfare that existed at the time. In fact, all sides engaged in this practice

I'm not aware of any contraventions either. I'm looking at the book 'Armies of Muslim Conquest' by Prof. David Nicolle and the very first sentence under the chapter called "The Prophet's First Warriors" is:"Arabian warfare was based on different principles from that of their larger neighbors, razzia raiding being the most common tactic."

Meccans didn't cry foul - they had too much dignity as Arab men to whine about it - they simply rallied forces and fought back. Why are people crying foul centuries later on their behalf?

motive was revenge

Not any more than war on Japan was 'revenge' for Pearl Harbor. It was war, pure and simple - declaring revenge in this context is silly.

and enrichment

I guess they could have popped a bunch of arrows into the hapless camels and left them for dead along with all the goods, but - thank God - they were smarter than that and took advantage of the goods to fund their own war efforts and help the poor and destitute.

Now, obviously, by WW2 boarding and commandeering of ships was not so feasible. A better naval analogy is the earlier use of letters of marque (something the wise Dr. Ron Paul has called for in dealing with terrorism) common in procuring privateers. And what exactly did the privateers do?"European governments regularly issued documents known as Letters of Marque and Reprisal to legitimize privately outfitted men-of-war. In a tradition dating back to the Middle Ages, under highly regulated conditions, these documents authorized private parties to attack enemy vessels. Without the documentation, these same activities were considered acts of piracy and subject to prosecution. If a privateer captured an enemy ship (known as a prize), an admiralty prize court had to approve the seizure. Then, the proceeds from the sale of the prize and its cargo were shared among the owners and crew of the privateer according to a pre-arranged contract....A Privateer Commission was issued to vessels, called privateers or cruisers, whose primary objective was to disrupt enemy shipping.

The ideal target was an unarmed, or lightly armed, commercial ship.

"https://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/privateers.html

The Prophet (pbuh) was head of state in Madinah, even recognized as such by the Jewish community according to the Sahifah of Madinah, thus this was normal military proceedings between two city-states.

Today, we can either bomb oil tankers heading out of Daesh territories or we could waylay them with teams of special forces and divert the oil for our own benefit - your call.

I already established the Prophet (pbuh) did not live a luxurious life - unless you've got something I've never come across, but other than supporting him and his family, who did the spoils go to after the warriors had received their share? Let's see what Imam Mawardi (ra) states in his Ahkam Sultaniyyah (Rules of Governance):The Hanafi and Maliki schools (which have been the widest employed schools, historically) concur that the proceeds from the spoils are only distributed to these three:1) orphans 2) indigent 3) travelers (those who do not have access to their own wealth)

The Shafi’i school simply adds the following:1) public interest projects in general and 2) descendants of Bani Hashim and Bani Muttalib (his family ties)

This shows that the strongest evidence (which is derived by the example of the Prophet [pbuh] himself) is in favor of the spoils being used specifically to help the needy in the community and not fatten up pockets.

Does not make drinking Islamic – makes them ‘fujjaar’ – transgressors or reprobates.

But they are not claiming that drinking is Islamic and that it is the duty of Muslims to drink! You seriously cannot tell the difference? Not to mention that drinking is a minor transgression, completely inconsequential, compared to the transgressions of the Takfiris.

So, yes, by not rejecting Wahhabists you validate that ISIS is Islamic and thereby debase your own religion. They do not believe they are transgressing - they believe you are.

This is what takes one out of Islam – negation through belief – not faulty praxis.

Which describes Wahhabists 100%. It is their (anti-Islamic) belief system that is the core problem, not their actions in violation of their belief.

I am unqualified.

Shi'as have no problem pointing out these Wahhabists are not Muslim. Yet Sunnis spend far more time attacking (peaceful) Shi'a than Wahhabists (and not only the Saudis).

My point is: if Sunni scholars are too cowardly to condemn Wahhabism and accept it as Islam, then the destruction of Sunni Islam (perhaps all Islam) will follow. The world does not need any ideology or religion that is as intolerant and brutal as Wahhabism, and if Sunni "scholars' (cowards) want to extend their hand to Wahhabists and keep them inside their "Sunni" tent, let the flame consume them all, for whatever tent Wahhabists reside in will be burned down. Wahhabism will be destroyed, one way or another, the question is only: what is the collateral damage? Who will be destroyed with it?

Hey CalDre,

if Sunni “scholars’ (cowards) want to extend their hand to Wahhabists and keep them inside their “Sunni” tent

You keep saying this although I keep negating that they are considered Sunni – oh well, I can only make the point so many times. And you say by not declaring Wahhabis as unbelievers, that means I am then validating Daesh even though I clearly stated that Sunni scholars have declared war on Daesh (i.e. shooting them and bombing them is permissible) – I don’t understand the exact logic, but that’s fine.

I will leave you with this, the Amman Message in Jordan was signed by the highest level authorities from both the Sunni and Shiah scholarship. It stated:
“They specifically recognized the validity of all 8 Mathhabs (legal schools) of Sunni, Shi’a and Ibadhi Islam; of traditional Islamic Theology (Ash’arism); of Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), and of true Salafi thought, and came to a precise definition of who is a Muslim.”

This was signed by Ayatollah Sistani and other high ranking marja’s of the Shiah community. It was also signed by high-ranking moderate Wahhabi/Salafis like:
Shaykh Abdullah ibn Mani (http://www.alifta.net/Fatawa/MoftyDetails.aspx?languagename=en&ID=6). It is an affirmation of understanding between Shiah and moderate Wahhabi/Salafis. We, as Muslims, have been trying to build bridges to prevent more bloodshed. It is alright if you don’t understand – this is a duty of brotherhood which comes with being part of the ummah of Muhammad (pbuh).

You keep saying this although I keep negating that they are considered Sunni

They consider themselves Sunni Muslim, and if you say they are not Sunni, then they are also not Muslim, as they do not claim to be any other kind of Muslim than Sunni. So really I think you are creating confusion by making one claim ("they are not Sunni") but repudiating the consequences of that claim ("they are also not Muslim"). Perhaps you are dancing on the head of a needle by saying they are not "Orthodox Sunni", but may be another form of Sunni, like Salafist. I guess it is not clear to me what you are claiming :), whereas my claim is rather clear, they they are not Muslim at all.

And you say by not declaring Wahhabis as unbelievers, that means I am then validating Daesh even though I clearly stated that Sunni scholars have declared war on Daesh (i.e. shooting them and bombing them is permissible) – I don’t understand the exact logic, but that’s fine.

You are validating them as Muslims, even though, for some reason, you think it is permitted to seek out and kill these Muslims (which if they are indeed Muslims would not be permitted). So again, you have just confused me.

I will leave you with this, the Amman Message in Jordan was signed by the highest level authorities from both the Sunni and Shiah scholarship. It stated:

Thanks for that, I heard about this conference but lost track of it at some point.

“They specifically recognized the validity of all 8 Mathhabs (legal schools) of Sunni, Shi’a and Ibadhi Islam; of traditional Islamic Theology (Ash’arism); of Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), and of true Salafi thought, and came to a precise definition of who is a Muslim.”

Well I did look for some "precise definition" but was of course disappointed. Saying a "true Salafi" is a Muslim is really no more helpful than saying "a true Muslim is a Muslim", i.e., it is a sort of tautology. At least they could have explicitly declared some branches like Wahhabism to be outside Islam so there was a minimum of meaning to it, as it stands, it's still completely wishy-washy, fence-straddling, cowardly hogwash. Or maybe I missed the precise part?

We, as Muslims, have been trying to build bridges to prevent more bloodshed. It is alright if you don’t understand – this is a duty of brotherhood which comes with being part of the ummah of Muhammad (pbuh).

You cannot build a bridge to intolerant, arrogant, barbaric mass murderers who would rather kill you than speak to you. At least from the perspective of the many, many people (me being among them) who for Wahhabists are apostates; the only way to deal with a Wahhabist is to kill him before he can kill you.

If an ISIS cell intentionally spread a communicable disease to NYC (regardless of whether or not they believed it killed people by it’s smell), and it ended up getting spread across the country, it would obviously be the case that ISIS was responsible.

Let me ask you this: if you have the flu, and go to the mall, school, work, a game, or anywhere else public, and someone else catches the disease, are you civilly (financially) and criminally liable for that? If this person later dies from the disease (say the victim was a vulnerable person for flu, say an infant or a senior citizen, or you infected a mother or child who later spread it to the infant or senior citizen), are you guilty of murder? I think most people would say "no" but I am curious what you think. And would it make a difference if a Muslim did the same thing?

You really love straw man arguments and misdirection, don’t you?

What is it about admitting that a major army intentionally trying to infect civilians with a deadly disease and causing an outbreak is something entirely different than when a person has the flu and inadvertently infects another with it?

Obviously, it makes no difference if a Turk or a Texan inadvertently infects another with the flu. You just misdirect these discussions, because you have no leg to stand on for your points.

Interestingly, my discussion here began over the fact that if we’re going to call the diseases that devastated native Americans ‘European diseases’ when inadvertently spread by Europeans, then why not do we not do the same when others, in this case Muslims in the Mongolian Golden Horde, intentionally spread the Plague to a European city which led to an outbreak? You now seem to be arguing that intent to spread the disease should make a difference in blame, which strengthens my point all the more.

If an ISIS cell intentionally spread a communicable disease to NYC (regardless of whether or not they believed it killed people by it’s smell), and it ended up getting spread across the country, it would obviously be the case that ISIS was responsible.

So, by analogy, if Europeans intentionally spread a communicable disease to Plymouth (regardless of whether or not they believed it would kill the Native Americans through contagion), and it ended up getting spread across the land, it would obviously be the case the Europeans were responsible.

So you would morally blame Christian Europeans for all of the disease deaths of Native Americans. Interesting. I wouldn't go that far. I would only place on those who intentionally (which is documented in several though not large cases) and indifferently (knowing the locals did not have an immunity but coming into contact anyway, which actually happened quite frequently) spreading of the diseases. However even in that case, I don't think one could blame all Christians or Christianity for the crime - just the individuals who acted criminally.

You really need to go and take some classes in basic philosophy and logic.

You go from saying:
“if Europeans intentionally spread a communicable disease to Plymouth (regardless of whether or not they believed it would kill the Native Americans through contagion), and it ended up getting spread across the land, it would obviously be the case the Europeans were responsible.”

Directly to:
“So you would morally blame Christian Europeans for all of the disease deaths of Native Americans. Interesting. I wouldn’t go that far.”

What’s missing? Well, I guess I’ll have to fill it in for you. You pull a made-up hypothetical out of thin air (Europeans intentionally spreading diseases at Plymouth to native Americans) and use it to substantiate the real deaths of native Americans.

What’s more, you even fail to make sensible comparisons even within your own argument. If I say a hypothetical about ISIS spreading a disease to NYC would make ISIS responsible for the spread of that disease across the US, how is the direct comparison to that saying a hypothetical group of people pulling up in a boat at Plymouth spreading a disease means all Christian Europeans are responsible for all native American disease? The logic simply isn’t there in your statements.

And your whole point is a misdirection. Our discussion began over the fact that if we’re going to call the diseases that devastated native Americans ‘European diseases’ when inadvertently spread by Europeans, then why not do we not do the same when others, in this case Muslims in the Mongolian Golden Horde, intentionally spread the Plague to a European city which led to an outbreak? You claimed it never happened. Then, when you found it it did, you started all manner of misdirection of the discussion.

What’s missing? Well, I guess I’ll have to fill it in for you. You pull a made-up hypothetical out of thin air (Europeans intentionally spreading diseases at Plymouth to native Americans) and use it to substantiate the real deaths of native Americans.

It is you who has equated the fact of spreading it with the intent of spreading it. Even in your hypothetical, you called it "intentional" spreading of the disease even if ISIS did not know the disease would be spread. So I built my hypothetical analogy in the hope you were clever enough to see the fallacy in your statement.

It is you who is incapable of rational discussion, whether it is out of stupidity or stubbornness I don't know. As to logic, I am actually a master at it, and I have numerous objective test scores on logic and mathematical tests to prove I am easily in the top 0.01% nationally in this regard.

Your claim is that the black plague should be called Muslim plague as you are desperate to condemn Islam. I'm just pointing out that at no point in the spread of the disease was the Muslim faith a factor.

you refuted yourself because you earlier said that it was not by Muslims, whereas the Turkish Tatars were known Muslims.

I wrote Tatars were Muslims. My other point was and is that Islam had nothing to do with the spread of the disease to Europe.

BTW- given all the slavery being practiced by the Turks and Muslims in general at the time, they’d hardly have a leg to stand on for anyone doing it to them.

Christians were also master slave holders/traders, as were Jews, Communists, pagans, etc. And while the US was busy holding a ton of African slaves, I am quite sure they would have been upset if someone was kidnapping White Gerogians and selling them into slavery, don't you think? And in any case the Tatars were not then slaveholders (they started enslaving Russians several decades after the Kaffa battle).

Theory on your part. Maybe so, maybe not. Still does not disprove an intent to spread it, does it?

First of all when you make any accusation it is your responsibility to prove it, not mine to disprove it. And it's not my theory, it is the explanation of de Mussis who wrote the account of the battle, without which, we probably would not have even known this battle happened: "[T]hey ordered corpses to be placed in catapults and lobbed into the city in the hope that the intolerable stench would kill everyone inside."

I’m sure the inhabitants of Kaffa would forgive them now that they know their true intentions.

Again, misdirection. Your ridiculous claim, and I repeat this again as you continue to engage in misdirection and subterfuge, was that Muslims intentionally spread plague to Europe. Hence this point is crucial: the Tatars did not even intentionally spread the plague to the inhabitants of Kaffa - they had no idea their actions would spread the plague. Do you even know what intent means?

Nonsense. They spread it intentionally to the inhabitants of Kaffa. Whether or not the inhabitants of Kaffa fled, spreading it further, you still have this group of Muslims still intentionally spreading it, and causing an outbreak.

Again, you have twisted everything in your obsession to blame something massively evil on Muslims and to try to discredit a religion.

I have established that the diseases first greatly affected the Tatars, killing thousands per day; and that the disease then spread into the city (either by rats entering the city, the most likely case, or, by the Tatars catapulting dead bodies into the city, but, critically, not with the intent to spread the disease). So there was no intent even to spread it to Kaffa (though there was definitely an intent to conquer the city, and the only reason for that is that the slave traders who were enslaving Tatars had holed up in there). Finally I have established that the disease may have been subsequently brought to Europe by those fleeing Kaffa, but there is no evidence whatsoever that (a) the Tatars knew these individuals would escape from them, or (b) that this would cause the disease to spread to Europe (people of that day tended to think such outbreaks were God's/Allah's punishment and hence there was no reason to think it would spread to "innocent" people), and beyond that there is no evidence whatsoever they intended for any of this to happen (intent requires both knowledge and the desire that the result occur).

“Your claim is that the black plague should be called Muslim plague as you are desperate to condemn Islam. I’m just pointing out that at no point in the spread of the disease was the Muslim faith a factor.”

Over and over, your argument seems to focus on claming that I am somehow desperately trying to attack Muslims. This is 100% in your head. I have used this as an example to again point out that if we’re going to call the diseases that devastated native Americans ‘European diseases’ when inadvertently spread by Europeans, then why not do we not do the same when others, in this case Muslims in the Mongolian Golden Horde, intentionally spread the Plague to a European city which led to an outbreak?

More misdirection on your part, trying to focus away from the original discussion in which you were wrong, by making a straw man argument in claiming that I was really just trying to desperately attack Muslims, and attacking that.

You have established nothing. You use lies, misdirection, and irrational discussion to establish your points. Feel free to write whatever more nonsense you want after this. I’m through with debating against the irrational.

I have used this as an example to again point out that if we’re going to call the diseases that devastated native Americans ‘European diseases’ when inadvertently spread by Europeans, then why not do we not do the same when others, in this case Muslims in the Mongolian Golden Horde, intentionally spread the Plague to a European city which led to an outbreak?

Again, you make your spurious and idiotic claim that the plague was spread "intentionally". And then accuse me of misdirection, lol.

As to why some call the diseases that devastated Native Americans "European", I can't answer for them as I don't do it, but I presume it is because many plants, animals, and diseases are named after (i) their discoverer, or (ii) where they were discovered. I can't think of any plants, animals or diseases that are named after (i) the religion of their discoverer, or (ii) the religion of the place in which they were discovered.

I've never heard them referred to as "Christian diseases" and such a name would be stupid, as stupid as your claim of "Muslim disease". But your claim of "intentionally" spread is not just stupid but also evil.

I like how the Meccans are regarded here as the victims when they expelled the Muslims and looted their belongings and dwellings that they left behind. This is normal warfare of the siege and interdiction variety to cripple the economic capability of a people to wage war – the US torpedoed anything leaving the Japanese harbors in WW2. You can read the works of Prof. David Nicolle to see if this was a departure from the norms of medieval warfare tactics.

Muhammed and his fellow Muslims raiding the caravans of Mecca and enriching themselves with the booty is not necessarily analogous to the U.S. sinking Japanese military and merchant vessels since in the case of the merchant vessel any cargo of value would have sunk with the ship - the U.S. would not have gained anything tangible except hindering Japan's economic capability to wage war and deliver war material to its soldiers. Naturally, sinking or damaging military vessels impedes an enemy's military capacity to wage warfare on the seas.

The Japanese did the same thing to the U.S. and in fact drew first blood shortly after Pearl Harbor off the coast of California, so this was not a one sided affair and I'm not aware that it contravened any accepted rules of warfare that existed at the time. In fact, all sides engaged in this practice although Soviet Russia committed an atrocity by sinking the Wilhelm Gustlof which was carrying 7000 war refugees, mostly women and children.

Muhammad's motive was revenge and enrichment while in WWII sinking an enemy's vessels was done to achieve military objectives in the broader context of a protracted military campaign.....revenge and lust for booty didn't enter in to the picture. These operations did not enrich the men taking part in them or lead to an increase in the national treasury of nation X when they sunk a vessel (or vessels) of nation Y.

Hey KenH,

Let’s take this point by point.

this was not a one sided affair

This certainly wasn’t either. Let’s see the first blood the Meccans had spilt:
1) Tortured and killed some of the Muslims who had no tribal protection
2) Drove the Muslims out of their home city (Mecca) to Madinah
3) Attempted to assassinate the Prophet (pbuh) on multiple occassions and even hunt him down on his emigration
4) Looted the homes and belongings that they left behind
4) Once the Muslims had been given refuge in Madinah, the Meccan elite sent this little note to the elite of Madinah who had given them refuge (and before the battle of Badr):
“You gave protection to our companion. We swear by God, you should fight or expel him, or we shall come to you in full force, until we kill your warriors and appropriate your women…“ (Reported in Abu-Dawud Book 19, Hadith 2998)

So the Muslims gave them some good game after God gave them permission.

I’m not aware that it contravened any accepted rules of warfare that existed at the time. In fact, all sides engaged in this practice

I’m not aware of any contraventions either. I’m looking at the book ‘Armies of Muslim Conquest’ by Prof. David Nicolle and the very first sentence under the chapter called “The Prophet’s First Warriors” is:
“Arabian warfare was based on different principles from that of their larger neighbors, razzia raiding being the most common tactic.”

Meccans didn’t cry foul – they had too much dignity as Arab men to whine about it – they simply rallied forces and fought back. Why are people crying foul centuries later on their behalf?

motive was revenge

Not any more than war on Japan was ‘revenge’ for Pearl Harbor. It was war, pure and simple – declaring revenge in this context is silly.

and enrichment

I guess they could have popped a bunch of arrows into the hapless camels and left them for dead along with all the goods, but – thank God – they were smarter than that and took advantage of the goods to fund their own war efforts and help the poor and destitute.

Now, obviously, by WW2 boarding and commandeering of ships was not so feasible. A better naval analogy is the earlier use of letters of marque (something the wise Dr. Ron Paul has called for in dealing with terrorism) common in procuring privateers. And what exactly did the privateers do?
“European governments regularly issued documents known as Letters of Marque and Reprisal to legitimize privately outfitted men-of-war. In a tradition dating back to the Middle Ages, under highly regulated conditions, these documents authorized private parties to attack enemy vessels. Without the documentation, these same activities were considered acts of piracy and subject to prosecution. If a privateer captured an enemy ship (known as a prize), an admiralty prize court had to approve the seizure. Then, the proceeds from the sale of the prize and its cargo were shared among the owners and crew of the privateer according to a pre-arranged contract.…A Privateer Commission was issued to vessels, called privateers or cruisers, whose primary objective was to disrupt enemy shipping.

The Prophet (pbuh) was head of state in Madinah, even recognized as such by the Jewish community according to the Sahifah of Madinah, thus this was normal military proceedings between two city-states.

Today, we can either bomb oil tankers heading out of Daesh territories or we could waylay them with teams of special forces and divert the oil for our own benefit – your call.

I already established the Prophet (pbuh) did not live a luxurious life – unless you’ve got something I’ve never come across, but other than supporting him and his family, who did the spoils go to after the warriors had received their share? Let’s see what Imam Mawardi (ra) states in his Ahkam Sultaniyyah (Rules of Governance):
The Hanafi and Maliki schools (which have been the widest employed schools, historically) concur that the proceeds from the spoils are only distributed to these three:
1) orphans 2) indigent 3) travelers (those who do not have access to their own wealth)

The Shafi’i school simply adds the following:
1) public interest projects in general and 2) descendants of Bani Hashim and Bani Muttalib (his family ties)

This shows that the strongest evidence (which is derived by the example of the Prophet [pbuh] himself) is in favor of the spoils being used specifically to help the needy in the community and not fatten up pockets.

Muslims (or many of them) claim that they were "persecuted" for no reason, same with Christian claims about the Romans' alleged persecution. The Quraysh were reacting to Muhammad preaching fire and damnation for them. Arabia before that time had Jews, Christians, Hanifs, pagans, etc. so you can't say they were intolerant on principle.

Yes, let's. It seems there is dispute, even from some Arab-Muslim sources, about the Muslims of Mecca being persecuted for their beliefs and unceremoniously expelled from Mecca with only the clothes on their backs.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/antagonizing.htm

Logically this would make sense as Mecca was home to many pagan faiths and innumerable gods, so it seems strange that Muslims, just one among many, were singled out for opprobrium and persecution for simply minding their own business and preaching the faith.

Meccans didn’t cry foul – they had too much dignity as Arab men to whine about it – they simply rallied forces and fought back. Why are people crying foul centuries later on their behalf?

I'm not crying foul and care only insofar as the parallel you drew with U.S. sub warfare against Japan. Recall that you likened the Muslim raids on Meccan caravans to U.S.submarines lurking outside of Japanese harbors possibly implying that there was something dishonorable and illegal in this (there wasn't as all sides engaged in submarine warfare against merchant vessels especially Japan). This might only be analogous if U.S. sailors boarded Jap ships, gave them an option of converting to Christianity and when they refused, killing them, perhaps beheading some and taking all things of value. Or, Japanese boarding U.S. vessels and giving them an option to covert to Shintoism or face death while relieving them and the ship of all its valuable cargo.

Not any more than war on Japan was ‘revenge’ for Pearl Harbor. It was war, pure and simple – declaring revenge in this context is silly.

At least with a declaration of war the Japs knew we were coming for them and prepared accordingly. Did the Muslims of Medina send notice to the Meccans that war was upon them prior to the initial raid? But we didn't take our revenge for Pearl Harbor until the Doolittle raid on Tokyo in April 1942. Between the declaration of war in late December 1941 and that time the USA was getting the worst of the conflict both on land and at sea.

Today, we can either bomb oil tankers heading out of Daesh territories or we could waylay them with teams of special forces and divert the oil for our own benefit – your call.

I believe in "taking the oil" to coin Donald Trump only to deprive Daesh of the wherewithal to continue funding their nefarious activities. After they're gone I believe the natural resources should be returned to the inhabitants of the respective nations to sell on the market and use the proceeds from the sale to rebuild their war torn nations. That's only fair. But I would probably enact an embargo on Saudi oil so they can't fund mosques that continue spreading the cancer of Wahhabism.

I already established the Prophet (pbuh) did not live a luxurious life – unless you’ve got something I’ve never come across, but other than supporting him and his family, who did the spoils go to after the warriors had received their share?

I don't think I do and admittedly I'm no expert since the history of Islam is not my forte although I'd like to make a study of it at some point in the future to separate facts from myth and propaganda instead of relying on self styled experts from either side who often have their own agendas.

Without a doubt there is a charitable element within Islam (even though it's only extended to other Muslims in the vast majority of cases) evidenced by some of the things Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein and Bashar Assad did for their countrymen. Even Osama Bin Laden, despite his serious flaws (from a Western, non-Muslim perspective) was very selfless and charitable towards his fellow Muslims in Afghanistan. In this they all probably believed they were following the example of their prophet.

if Sunni “scholars’ (cowards) want to extend their hand to Wahhabists and keep them inside their “Sunni” tent

You keep saying this although I keep negating that they are considered Sunni - oh well, I can only make the point so many times. And you say by not declaring Wahhabis as unbelievers, that means I am then validating Daesh even though I clearly stated that Sunni scholars have declared war on Daesh (i.e. shooting them and bombing them is permissible) - I don't understand the exact logic, but that's fine.

I will leave you with this, the Amman Message in Jordan was signed by the highest level authorities from both the Sunni and Shiah scholarship. It stated:
"They specifically recognized the validity of all 8 Mathhabs (legal schools) of Sunni, Shi’a and Ibadhi Islam; of traditional Islamic Theology (Ash’arism); of Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), and of true Salafi thought, and came to a precise definition of who is a Muslim."
http://ammanmessage.com/

This was signed by Ayatollah Sistani and other high ranking marja's of the Shiah community. It was also signed by high-ranking moderate Wahhabi/Salafis like:
Shaykh Abdullah ibn Mani (http://www.alifta.net/Fatawa/MoftyDetails.aspx?languagename=en&ID=6). It is an affirmation of understanding between Shiah and moderate Wahhabi/Salafis. We, as Muslims, have been trying to build bridges to prevent more bloodshed. It is alright if you don't understand - this is a duty of brotherhood which comes with being part of the ummah of Muhammad (pbuh).

Peace.

You keep saying this although I keep negating that they are considered Sunni

They consider themselves Sunni Muslim, and if you say they are not Sunni, then they are also not Muslim, as they do not claim to be any other kind of Muslim than Sunni. So really I think you are creating confusion by making one claim (“they are not Sunni”) but repudiating the consequences of that claim (“they are also not Muslim”). Perhaps you are dancing on the head of a needle by saying they are not “Orthodox Sunni”, but may be another form of Sunni, like Salafist. I guess it is not clear to me what you are claiming :), whereas my claim is rather clear, they they are not Muslim at all.

And you say by not declaring Wahhabis as unbelievers, that means I am then validating Daesh even though I clearly stated that Sunni scholars have declared war on Daesh (i.e. shooting them and bombing them is permissible) – I don’t understand the exact logic, but that’s fine.

You are validating them as Muslims, even though, for some reason, you think it is permitted to seek out and kill these Muslims (which if they are indeed Muslims would not be permitted). So again, you have just confused me.

I will leave you with this, the Amman Message in Jordan was signed by the highest level authorities from both the Sunni and Shiah scholarship. It stated:

Thanks for that, I heard about this conference but lost track of it at some point.

“They specifically recognized the validity of all 8 Mathhabs (legal schools) of Sunni, Shi’a and Ibadhi Islam; of traditional Islamic Theology (Ash’arism); of Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), and of true Salafi thought, and came to a precise definition of who is a Muslim.”

Well I did look for some “precise definition” but was of course disappointed. Saying a “true Salafi” is a Muslim is really no more helpful than saying “a true Muslim is a Muslim”, i.e., it is a sort of tautology. At least they could have explicitly declared some branches like Wahhabism to be outside Islam so there was a minimum of meaning to it, as it stands, it’s still completely wishy-washy, fence-straddling, cowardly hogwash. Or maybe I missed the precise part?

We, as Muslims, have been trying to build bridges to prevent more bloodshed. It is alright if you don’t understand – this is a duty of brotherhood which comes with being part of the ummah of Muhammad (pbuh).

You cannot build a bridge to intolerant, arrogant, barbaric mass murderers who would rather kill you than speak to you. At least from the perspective of the many, many people (me being among them) who for Wahhabists are apostates; the only way to deal with a Wahhabist is to kill him before he can kill you.

I'm going to leave the first point alone because there really is no other way for me to make it clear - no problem.

which if they are indeed Muslims would not be permitted

Not really, Muslims can be hunted down and prosecuted and killed for crimes like murder, rape and highway robbery. Just because one is Muslim does not give one a free pass without dealing with consequences. As Hazrat Ali (ra) stated, the Khawarij were fought for transgression upon other Muslims.

it’s still completely wishy-washy, fence-straddling, cowardly hogwash

That major Shiah marja's have signed along with moderate Wahhabis and Salafis - this is a fact - there is no opinion on this, you can see the list of signatories - it is literally a list of who's who of the Muslim world.

the only way to deal with a Wahhabist is to kill him before he can kill you

Oooookaaaaay - now that is a seriously dangerous notion and I hope you do not try to put that into practice. There are plenty of mosques around that have random Wahhabis that pray there and don't bother anybody.

"Your claim is that the black plague should be called Muslim plague as you are desperate to condemn Islam. I’m just pointing out that at no point in the spread of the disease was the Muslim faith a factor."

Over and over, your argument seems to focus on claming that I am somehow desperately trying to attack Muslims. This is 100% in your head. I have used this as an example to again point out that if we’re going to call the diseases that devastated native Americans ‘European diseases’ when inadvertently spread by Europeans, then why not do we not do the same when others, in this case Muslims in the Mongolian Golden Horde, intentionally spread the Plague to a European city which led to an outbreak?

More misdirection on your part, trying to focus away from the original discussion in which you were wrong, by making a straw man argument in claiming that I was really just trying to desperately attack Muslims, and attacking that.

You have established nothing. You use lies, misdirection, and irrational discussion to establish your points. Feel free to write whatever more nonsense you want after this. I'm through with debating against the irrational.

I have used this as an example to again point out that if we’re going to call the diseases that devastated native Americans ‘European diseases’ when inadvertently spread by Europeans, then why not do we not do the same when others, in this case Muslims in the Mongolian Golden Horde, intentionally spread the Plague to a European city which led to an outbreak?

Again, you make your spurious and idiotic claim that the plague was spread “intentionally”. And then accuse me of misdirection, lol.

As to why some call the diseases that devastated Native Americans “European”, I can’t answer for them as I don’t do it, but I presume it is because many plants, animals, and diseases are named after (i) their discoverer, or (ii) where they were discovered. I can’t think of any plants, animals or diseases that are named after (i) the religion of their discoverer, or (ii) the religion of the place in which they were discovered.

I’ve never heard them referred to as “Christian diseases” and such a name would be stupid, as stupid as your claim of “Muslim disease”. But your claim of “intentionally” spread is not just stupid but also evil.

You really need to go and take some classes in basic philosophy and logic.

You go from saying:
"if Europeans intentionally spread a communicable disease to Plymouth (regardless of whether or not they believed it would kill the Native Americans through contagion), and it ended up getting spread across the land, it would obviously be the case the Europeans were responsible."

Directly to:
"So you would morally blame Christian Europeans for all of the disease deaths of Native Americans. Interesting. I wouldn’t go that far."

What's missing? Well, I guess I'll have to fill it in for you. You pull a made-up hypothetical out of thin air (Europeans intentionally spreading diseases at Plymouth to native Americans) and use it to substantiate the real deaths of native Americans.

What's more, you even fail to make sensible comparisons even within your own argument. If I say a hypothetical about ISIS spreading a disease to NYC would make ISIS responsible for the spread of that disease across the US, how is the direct comparison to that saying a hypothetical group of people pulling up in a boat at Plymouth spreading a disease means all Christian Europeans are responsible for all native American disease? The logic simply isn't there in your statements.

And your whole point is a misdirection. Our discussion began over the fact that if we’re going to call the diseases that devastated native Americans ‘European diseases’ when inadvertently spread by Europeans, then why not do we not do the same when others, in this case Muslims in the Mongolian Golden Horde, intentionally spread the Plague to a European city which led to an outbreak? You claimed it never happened. Then, when you found it it did, you started all manner of misdirection of the discussion.

What’s missing? Well, I guess I’ll have to fill it in for you. You pull a made-up hypothetical out of thin air (Europeans intentionally spreading diseases at Plymouth to native Americans) and use it to substantiate the real deaths of native Americans.

It is you who has equated the fact of spreading it with the intent of spreading it. Even in your hypothetical, you called it “intentional” spreading of the disease even if ISIS did not know the disease would be spread. So I built my hypothetical analogy in the hope you were clever enough to see the fallacy in your statement.

It is you who is incapable of rational discussion, whether it is out of stupidity or stubbornness I don’t know. As to logic, I am actually a master at it, and I have numerous objective test scores on logic and mathematical tests to prove I am easily in the top 0.01% nationally in this regard.

Exactly, so when times were good, the conversions were out of sincerity or to get relaxation on taxes and when times were bad, people likely converted out of fear.

Well, yes and no. This doesn't change the fact that even in the "good" times Copts often occupied a lower legal plane than Muslims and their upward social mobility was limited. This system was designed to encourage conversions and and did just that over a period of time. No doubt there were willing conversions (not forced) immediately following the Muslim conquest as some Copts were not happy with the Orthodox Church in Constantinople and figured the grass was greener (so to speak) with Islam and/or found the doctrines of Islam simpler and more palatable.

Today we seem to be entering into another phase of repression of the Egyptian Copts given the well publicized beheadings on the beach in 2015, destruction of some of their churches and kidnappings and rape of Coptic women by Muslims.

And the Mamluk period of intense discrimination and violence was not the norm throughout Egyptian history and simply exemplified “

Possibly not. In Lothrop Stoddard's book New World Of Islam he credits the Turkish influence (Seljuk, Mamluke, Ottoman) to much of the atrocities and bad press associated with Islam. I've been unable to finish the book because I keep misplacing it. But Wahabbism and all the unrest and violence it's created is a Bedouin-Arab phenomenon which has become a menace once again with the rise if ISIS and their sympathizers throughout the Middle East and the entire Muslim world.

.....and the British used to tie up prisoners to the fronts of cannons and blow them apart in India (Mughals also did this), and the Italians put Libyans in concentration camps, and…and…some people like playing the “atrocity tennis match” – I’d like to stick to the issues at hand.

The Brits didn't do it to prisoners or simply for sport. The only instance in which they did this was after suppressing the Sepoy mutiny where both Hindu and Muslim Sepoys had assassinated some British officers and their families usually while they were sleeping. The numbers killed in this fashion was around 400 max. When the English colonists revolted against the British Crown they did so by attacking armed British soldiers not murdering the officers and their families while they slept. Context is everything.

This is not to say that Europeans are incapable of committing atrocities. Immediately after they took Jerusalem, the crusaders slaughtered many Muslims, including women and children, after they surrendered and volunteered to leave the city. Some crusaders attacked and killed Jews on their way to the holy land. Or when the Romans attacked Carthage, slew all the men, razed it to the ground and sold the surviving women and children into slavery. The European Thirty Years War between Protestant and Catholic makes ISIS look restrained but in another 25 years we'll see.

....and the Italians put Libyans in concentration camps

Yes, not good, but it had nothing to do with persecuting Muslims over their religious beliefs. Italy also agreed to pay 5 billion dollars in compensation and reparations in 2008. Turkey has yet to pay reparations to central Europeans, Romanians and Hungarians for the invasion, death and destruction they wrought from the 15th through the 18th centuries?

“As later recorded by Spanish priest Bartolomé de las Casas, Hatuey showed the Cubans a basket full of gold and jewels. “Here is the God the Spaniards worship,” he said, “for these they fight and kill; for these they persecute us and that is why we have to throw them into the sea…”

Of the conquistadors lust for wealth and gold I have no doubt, but Muslim rulers throughout history didn't exactly eschew gold and wealth. It was none other than the prophet Muhammed and the first Muslims who raided caravans and stole possessions of Meccans. Likewise, Muslims robbing Christian pilgrims of their possessions and sometimes killing them in the holy land was one reason for the Crusades. And the Saudi royal family, with it's ostentatious displays of obscene wealth, make the Spanish conquistadors look like the Beverly Hillbillies. So some Muslims also worship the golden calf right alongside their otherwordly deity.

Spaniards reneged and expelled them (you can read the terms of surrender here):

After a good faith attempt to reach an accord with the remaining Moorish population things didn't seem to be working out as hoped. That is because even after forced conversion of many Moors to Christianity there was still lingering ethnic tension among the old Spanish Christians and Moriscos (just as there had been with conversos, or converted Jews) and the Spanish rulers viewed the Moriscos as a fifth column within the Spanish nation.

Ibn Jubayr wrote a lot about the Crusader states and Norman Sicily and their subjects, pretty fascinating.

You keep saying this although I keep negating that they are considered Sunni

They consider themselves Sunni Muslim, and if you say they are not Sunni, then they are also not Muslim, as they do not claim to be any other kind of Muslim than Sunni. So really I think you are creating confusion by making one claim ("they are not Sunni") but repudiating the consequences of that claim ("they are also not Muslim"). Perhaps you are dancing on the head of a needle by saying they are not "Orthodox Sunni", but may be another form of Sunni, like Salafist. I guess it is not clear to me what you are claiming :), whereas my claim is rather clear, they they are not Muslim at all.

And you say by not declaring Wahhabis as unbelievers, that means I am then validating Daesh even though I clearly stated that Sunni scholars have declared war on Daesh (i.e. shooting them and bombing them is permissible) – I don’t understand the exact logic, but that’s fine.

You are validating them as Muslims, even though, for some reason, you think it is permitted to seek out and kill these Muslims (which if they are indeed Muslims would not be permitted). So again, you have just confused me.

I will leave you with this, the Amman Message in Jordan was signed by the highest level authorities from both the Sunni and Shiah scholarship. It stated:

Thanks for that, I heard about this conference but lost track of it at some point.

“They specifically recognized the validity of all 8 Mathhabs (legal schools) of Sunni, Shi’a and Ibadhi Islam; of traditional Islamic Theology (Ash’arism); of Islamic Mysticism (Sufism), and of true Salafi thought, and came to a precise definition of who is a Muslim.”

Well I did look for some "precise definition" but was of course disappointed. Saying a "true Salafi" is a Muslim is really no more helpful than saying "a true Muslim is a Muslim", i.e., it is a sort of tautology. At least they could have explicitly declared some branches like Wahhabism to be outside Islam so there was a minimum of meaning to it, as it stands, it's still completely wishy-washy, fence-straddling, cowardly hogwash. Or maybe I missed the precise part?

We, as Muslims, have been trying to build bridges to prevent more bloodshed. It is alright if you don’t understand – this is a duty of brotherhood which comes with being part of the ummah of Muhammad (pbuh).

You cannot build a bridge to intolerant, arrogant, barbaric mass murderers who would rather kill you than speak to you. At least from the perspective of the many, many people (me being among them) who for Wahhabists are apostates; the only way to deal with a Wahhabist is to kill him before he can kill you.

Hey CalDre,

I’m going to leave the first point alone because there really is no other way for me to make it clear – no problem.

which if they are indeed Muslims would not be permitted

Not really, Muslims can be hunted down and prosecuted and killed for crimes like murder, rape and highway robbery. Just because one is Muslim does not give one a free pass without dealing with consequences. As Hazrat Ali (ra) stated, the Khawarij were fought for transgression upon other Muslims.

it’s still completely wishy-washy, fence-straddling, cowardly hogwash

That major Shiah marja’s have signed along with moderate Wahhabis and Salafis – this is a fact – there is no opinion on this, you can see the list of signatories – it is literally a list of who’s who of the Muslim world.

the only way to deal with a Wahhabist is to kill him before he can kill you

Oooookaaaaay – now that is a seriously dangerous notion and I hope you do not try to put that into practice. There are plenty of mosques around that have random Wahhabis that pray there and don’t bother anybody.

Muslims can be hunted down and prosecuted and killed for crimes like murder, rape and highway robbery

And we are back to my point: the Wahhabist types do not believe their murders, rapes and robberies are haram. So you are authorizing to kill them for what they believe is Islamic right and duty. Again I see a huge difference because you are in this case implicitly rejecting their religion as being Islam. But for some reason you don't want to go that little further step and declare them apostates - perhaps due to an unsavory history to this practice, particularly among the Wahhabists.

That major Shiah marja’s have signed along with moderate Wahhabis and Salafis – this is a fact

Don't get me wrong, I recognize that it is an improvement that a Wahhabist declares Shi'ism to be true Islam. But I am disappointed they could not go further and instead of beating around the bush, call out the Takfiris for the non-believers that they are.

There are plenty of mosques around that have random Wahhabis that pray there and don’t bother anybody.

You should know I meant the ... "activist" ones.

You Shiah, bro?

You should know from our discussion I am not Muslim :). But, to these extremists even you are probably an apostate, though I don't know for sure your beliefs. Their definition of apostate - i.e. those they are obligated to kill - is about 99% of the planet. As you can see with the experience of Christians and Yazidis, visitors, and others, in their midst, they do not conform to the obligations toward Dar-us-Salam, neither Zimmis nor Musta'min. If I were to travel to Raqqa, indeed, they would want to kill me. For that they deserve only one treatment from me.

This certainly wasn't either. Let's see the first blood the Meccans had spilt:1) Tortured and killed some of the Muslims who had no tribal protection2) Drove the Muslims out of their home city (Mecca) to Madinah3) Attempted to assassinate the Prophet (pbuh) on multiple occassions and even hunt him down on his emigration4) Looted the homes and belongings that they left behind4) Once the Muslims had been given refuge in Madinah, the Meccan elite sent this little note to the elite of Madinah who had given them refuge (and before the battle of Badr):“You gave protection to our companion. We swear by God, you should fight or expel him, or we shall come to you in full force, until we kill your warriors and appropriate your women...“ (Reported in Abu-Dawud Book 19, Hadith 2998)

So the Muslims gave them some good game after God gave them permission.

I’m not aware that it contravened any accepted rules of warfare that existed at the time. In fact, all sides engaged in this practice

I'm not aware of any contraventions either. I'm looking at the book 'Armies of Muslim Conquest' by Prof. David Nicolle and the very first sentence under the chapter called "The Prophet's First Warriors" is:"Arabian warfare was based on different principles from that of their larger neighbors, razzia raiding being the most common tactic."

Meccans didn't cry foul - they had too much dignity as Arab men to whine about it - they simply rallied forces and fought back. Why are people crying foul centuries later on their behalf?

motive was revenge

Not any more than war on Japan was 'revenge' for Pearl Harbor. It was war, pure and simple - declaring revenge in this context is silly.

and enrichment

I guess they could have popped a bunch of arrows into the hapless camels and left them for dead along with all the goods, but - thank God - they were smarter than that and took advantage of the goods to fund their own war efforts and help the poor and destitute.

Now, obviously, by WW2 boarding and commandeering of ships was not so feasible. A better naval analogy is the earlier use of letters of marque (something the wise Dr. Ron Paul has called for in dealing with terrorism) common in procuring privateers. And what exactly did the privateers do?"European governments regularly issued documents known as Letters of Marque and Reprisal to legitimize privately outfitted men-of-war. In a tradition dating back to the Middle Ages, under highly regulated conditions, these documents authorized private parties to attack enemy vessels. Without the documentation, these same activities were considered acts of piracy and subject to prosecution. If a privateer captured an enemy ship (known as a prize), an admiralty prize court had to approve the seizure. Then, the proceeds from the sale of the prize and its cargo were shared among the owners and crew of the privateer according to a pre-arranged contract....A Privateer Commission was issued to vessels, called privateers or cruisers, whose primary objective was to disrupt enemy shipping.

The ideal target was an unarmed, or lightly armed, commercial ship.

"https://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/privateers.html

The Prophet (pbuh) was head of state in Madinah, even recognized as such by the Jewish community according to the Sahifah of Madinah, thus this was normal military proceedings between two city-states.

Today, we can either bomb oil tankers heading out of Daesh territories or we could waylay them with teams of special forces and divert the oil for our own benefit - your call.

I already established the Prophet (pbuh) did not live a luxurious life - unless you've got something I've never come across, but other than supporting him and his family, who did the spoils go to after the warriors had received their share? Let's see what Imam Mawardi (ra) states in his Ahkam Sultaniyyah (Rules of Governance):The Hanafi and Maliki schools (which have been the widest employed schools, historically) concur that the proceeds from the spoils are only distributed to these three:1) orphans 2) indigent 3) travelers (those who do not have access to their own wealth)

The Shafi’i school simply adds the following:1) public interest projects in general and 2) descendants of Bani Hashim and Bani Muttalib (his family ties)

This shows that the strongest evidence (which is derived by the example of the Prophet [pbuh] himself) is in favor of the spoils being used specifically to help the needy in the community and not fatten up pockets.

Peace.

Muslims (or many of them) claim that they were “persecuted” for no reason, same with Christian claims about the Romans’ alleged persecution. The Quraysh were reacting to Muhammad preaching fire and damnation for them. Arabia before that time had Jews, Christians, Hanifs, pagans, etc. so you can’t say they were intolerant on principle.

No they weren't. Pagans/polytheists are generally very accommodating to other faiths - what's one more god into an ever growing pantheon? In fact they tried to make a deal with the Prophet (pbuh); we worship your god for a few days, then we worship ours for a few days. Sorry, God doesn't work like that- He sets the parameters. It wasn't like they just up and out of the blue said, "Hey, we're going to beat and starve these people!" The message was obviously shaking up their order; slaves and masters were brothers - what? Our idols are false gods? But the preaching was peaceful and the Meccans didn't like how this was going to up-end their social order and did indeed try to starve, beat, torture and kill some of the Muslims - and even bribe actually. The ones with strong tribal ties could escape this. I just don't like the way people talk about it as if the Prophet (pbuh) was simply started hostilities in Madinah or something. If he wanted revenge, there would have been a mass slaughter in Mecca when he captured it unawares and unprotected. Instead, even those who killed (and mutilated) his beloved family members, like Lady Hind bint Utbah (ra), were forgiven.

Read my note #110 - it talks about Islam's tendency to "out-stubborn" other faiths - feature, not a bug.

Muslims (or many of them) claim that they were "persecuted" for no reason, same with Christian claims about the Romans' alleged persecution. The Quraysh were reacting to Muhammad preaching fire and damnation for them. Arabia before that time had Jews, Christians, Hanifs, pagans, etc. so you can't say they were intolerant on principle.

Hey Marcus,

No they weren’t. Pagans/polytheists are generally very accommodating to other faiths – what’s one more god into an ever growing pantheon? In fact they tried to make a deal with the Prophet (pbuh); we worship your god for a few days, then we worship ours for a few days. Sorry, God doesn’t work like that- He sets the parameters. It wasn’t like they just up and out of the blue said, “Hey, we’re going to beat and starve these people!” The message was obviously shaking up their order; slaves and masters were brothers – what? Our idols are false gods? But the preaching was peaceful and the Meccans didn’t like how this was going to up-end their social order and did indeed try to starve, beat, torture and kill some of the Muslims – and even bribe actually. The ones with strong tribal ties could escape this. I just don’t like the way people talk about it as if the Prophet (pbuh) was simply started hostilities in Madinah or something. If he wanted revenge, there would have been a mass slaughter in Mecca when he captured it unawares and unprotected. Instead, even those who killed (and mutilated) his beloved family members, like Lady Hind bint Utbah (ra), were forgiven.

Read my note #110 – it talks about Islam’s tendency to “out-stubborn” other faiths – feature, not a bug.

They certainly fought with their usual vigor according to traditional accounts, these were very rough men for whom honor meant everything (see Herodotus on the Arabs). The religious situation in Arabia at that time still kind of perplexes, a hodgepodge of paganism and monotheist sects, probably many heretics escaping Roman authorities. It was gradually being drawn closer to its settled neighbors though.

I'm going to leave the first point alone because there really is no other way for me to make it clear - no problem.

which if they are indeed Muslims would not be permitted

Not really, Muslims can be hunted down and prosecuted and killed for crimes like murder, rape and highway robbery. Just because one is Muslim does not give one a free pass without dealing with consequences. As Hazrat Ali (ra) stated, the Khawarij were fought for transgression upon other Muslims.

it’s still completely wishy-washy, fence-straddling, cowardly hogwash

That major Shiah marja's have signed along with moderate Wahhabis and Salafis - this is a fact - there is no opinion on this, you can see the list of signatories - it is literally a list of who's who of the Muslim world.

the only way to deal with a Wahhabist is to kill him before he can kill you

Oooookaaaaay - now that is a seriously dangerous notion and I hope you do not try to put that into practice. There are plenty of mosques around that have random Wahhabis that pray there and don't bother anybody.

me being among them

You Shiah, bro? That would certainly explain a lot.

Peace.

Muslims can be hunted down and prosecuted and killed for crimes like murder, rape and highway robbery

And we are back to my point: the Wahhabist types do not believe their murders, rapes and robberies are haram. So you are authorizing to kill them for what they believe is Islamic right and duty. Again I see a huge difference because you are in this case implicitly rejecting their religion as being Islam. But for some reason you don’t want to go that little further step and declare them apostates – perhaps due to an unsavory history to this practice, particularly among the Wahhabists.

That major Shiah marja’s have signed along with moderate Wahhabis and Salafis – this is a fact

Don’t get me wrong, I recognize that it is an improvement that a Wahhabist declares Shi’ism to be true Islam. But I am disappointed they could not go further and instead of beating around the bush, call out the Takfiris for the non-believers that they are.

There are plenty of mosques around that have random Wahhabis that pray there and don’t bother anybody.

You should know I meant the … “activist” ones.

You Shiah, bro?

You should know from our discussion I am not Muslim :). But, to these extremists even you are probably an apostate, though I don’t know for sure your beliefs. Their definition of apostate – i.e. those they are obligated to kill – is about 99% of the planet. As you can see with the experience of Christians and Yazidis, visitors, and others, in their midst, they do not conform to the obligations toward Dar-us-Salam, neither Zimmis nor Musta’min. If I were to travel to Raqqa, indeed, they would want to kill me. For that they deserve only one treatment from me.

No they weren't. Pagans/polytheists are generally very accommodating to other faiths - what's one more god into an ever growing pantheon? In fact they tried to make a deal with the Prophet (pbuh); we worship your god for a few days, then we worship ours for a few days. Sorry, God doesn't work like that- He sets the parameters. It wasn't like they just up and out of the blue said, "Hey, we're going to beat and starve these people!" The message was obviously shaking up their order; slaves and masters were brothers - what? Our idols are false gods? But the preaching was peaceful and the Meccans didn't like how this was going to up-end their social order and did indeed try to starve, beat, torture and kill some of the Muslims - and even bribe actually. The ones with strong tribal ties could escape this. I just d